Talk:Skyfall/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Spoilers in the second paragraph

While, of course, Wikipedia policy is to provide a thorough outline of any given topic, I am concerned that the second paragraph of this page gives too much of the film's ending away. To quote;

The film centres on Bond investigating an attack on MI6; the attack is part of a plot by former MI6 operative Raoul Silva to humiliate, discredit and kill M as revenge against her for betraying him. The film sees the return of two recurring characters to the series after an absence of two films: Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and Eve Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. Skyfall is the last film of the series for Judi Dench, who played M, a role that she had played in the previous six films. The position is subsequently filled by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory.

From this paragraph, the reader discovers: the villain's identity and intentions, although the film maintains a sense of mystery about these elements until past the halfway mark; that Eve's real identity is Miss Moneypenny - granted, a fairly trivial point, but one the film still does not reveal until the closing scene; that the film is the last in the series for Judi Dench, and that she is replaced by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory - which collectively implies the entirety of the film's biggest plot twist, its climax, and its conclusion.

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but I'd like to raise several points concerning the matter: the film is very recent, having only been released on DVD within the past two months, and there are probably many people unfamiliar with the plot details mentioned; it is only the second paragraph of the entire page, and said details are repeated towards the end of the section headed 'Plot'; finally, not every casual reader of Wikipedia would be familiar with the policy mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph (to present a theoretical situation, someone might be looking up the main details of the film on Wikipedia to decide whether they would like to watch it, and would subsequently resent being told so much of the ending).

Naturally, a willingness to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines are important. I would, however, urge that on some occasions, we balance this with a sensitivity towards all the possible readers of any given page. The current implication is that information about Skyfall is inaccessible to anyone who has not seen the film, and would not like to be told its ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay on this. You are right in supposing it has been discussed before: it has, a number of times. Rather than re-hashing the same arguments once again, could you have a search of the archives at the top of this page and you'll see the reasoning behind it and the consensus that this was an appropriate lead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I did look over the archives. More people were of my opinion, it seems, and your minor edit - removing the explicit statement that M dies - hardly accounts for what we are trying to get through. Also, many of the points I raised above had not yet been addressed by you or anyone, especially the final paragraph.

Rules are often flawed. Not revealing a film's spoilers anywhere on its Wikipedia page would of course be nonsensical, whilst at the same time, not revealing the vast majority of its spoilers in the second paragraph seems to be a given. If there's nothing I or anyone can do about it then, well, I'll give in, but it's something of a sorry business.

Here, by the way, are some websites that have drawn attention to the aforementioned paragraph.

"Skyfall" Spoiled on Wikipedia - Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/skyfall-spoiled-on-wikipedia-2012-10

James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler - Yahoo! Movies http://movies.yahoo.com/news/james-bond-fans-beware-wikipedia-reveals-major-skyfall-202824704.html

Wikipedia Reveals Vital 'Skyfall' Spoiler, Leaving the Makers Shocked - Movie Zadda (Look this one up, Wikipedia won't allow the link)

Yes, we know about the news articles, we have them at the top of this page, and they don't relate to the second paragraph, they relate to the article as a whole, most notably the plot section. Secondly, the consensus is that the second paragraph is fine on balance: just because you don't like something is not a suitable reason for going against that consensus. There was nothing in the discussion which meant that the paragraph went against the MOS or any guidelines, while there are guidelines and policies that support its inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's just me, then that's fair enough, and I offer my genuine apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's really no need for an apology. You should always raise the question if you think it's worth asking: next time it may be that you're pointing out genuine errors. Thanks for taking the time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fake depiction of Turkey

There must be a paragraph about blatant anti Turkish propaganda in the opening scenes. Our country is depicted as a desert(!!) poor third world country with dust all over. Overall, 'Istanbul' in the movie is unrecognizable in the movie to any person who anyone who actually lives there; the place in the movie looks like Saudi Arabia or some middle east country.The makers of this film deliberately did it by overexposed lighting and by sprinkling sand on the roads for the chase scenes. Ironic that China was depicted so well with shiny skyscrapers when Turkey is more developed than China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a place for conspiratorial allegations. Overexposure is usually used to make somewhere look brighter, which is important as a stylistic technique. The rest of Skyfall is dark and bleak, with the cold open providing a harsh difference, and depicting the change of tone. As far as sand in the roads, this may have been an artistic choice, but is also used widely to provide a better surface for stunt driving. Using bare roads for certain stunts is harder, requires professional drivers (Naomi Harris did her own stunts), and can damage the road surface (or leave debris that requires cleaning). Sand makes filming faster and cheaper, and limits cleanup after takes. Take note also that the scenes in China were filmed in Shanghai, which is very much as depicted. There is a diverse range of development in China, and the skyscraper-based, high rise culture in Shanghai is one of the most opulent in the world. drewmunn talk 08:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning would carry weight if there was not such a long and established history of similar rabidly anti Turkish propaganda in Hollywood and American/Western TV. The false orientalist depiction of our nation as a 'third world, poor middle east country with sands and camels' resembling Irak or some arab country is not something new. The notorious Midnight Express, West Wing - where a woman is supposedly beheaded (!!!), and recently Taken 2 - where all women wear black tents, police use cars from the 1960s complete with garbage strewn alleys, crumbling buildings and dirt and filth everywhere. I could go on and on.

This is not simply my opinion . You can find a lot of outrage about the fake depictions of Turkey in skyfall everywhere. See for youself https://www.google.com.tr/search?client=opera&q=skyfall+ortadogu+OR+tozlu+OR+arap+OR+arabistan+OR+kara+carsaf&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

This needs to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. You are talking about 'Artistry'. Is there reason they didnt get 'artistic' with flying dust, overexposure and exotic music (which wasnt even remotely Turkish btw) in Britain or China? Everything points to the filmmakers indulging in the typical orientalist anti Turkish image and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin (talk • contribs)

Firstly please sign your posts with the four tildes (~~~~) so we know who is talking. Secondly, please indent your posts using a colon. In relation to the substantive point at hand, a search of non-Turkish media shows no "outrage". As such, I hardly think "everywhere" covers it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Schrocat on this one, I can find no non-turkish sources covering this matter. Also, because there was no need for this in other scenes. As I've said, the cold open needed to look different, exotic, and bright compared to the bleakness of the rest of the film. There were no stunts in later scenes that required preparation of the same nature as the ones in the cold open, and because there was no need for exotic music in the UK. Factual errors exist all over the place in movies, generally because the non-sensical version fits the public consciousness or artistic vision better than factual accuracy. This is not to spite a country, but to provide something that is immersive. We, for instance, are not moaning that the UK was depicted as bureaucratic, quaint, and unprepared for attack by one crazy guy. Or that Scotland was shown as desolate and empty. Similarly, there is no scandal over the depiction of a human trafficking through China as being detrimental to the country. Artistic choice, catering for the audience and narrative, and filming necessity do not surmount to conspiracy against a country. drewmunn talk 09:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; there was no deliberate effort to be unkind to Turkey or otherwise depict it negatively here. Purely artistic decisions which occur in every film. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; the anon IP may be well-intentioned, but in terms of encyclopedic objectivity, his comments are POV soapbox essaying. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are non-Turkish sources documenting this phenomenon. See an article by the US based Matador Network cited in Stereotypes_of_West_and_Central_Asians_in_the_United_States#Turkic_peoples. I am leaning towards the view of the majority here - that this alleged bias should not be mentioned in the Skyfall article. However, purely chalking it up to artistic license seems naive. Part of it is that the Skyfall production team indulged in these stereotypes without realizing it because they are so pervasive. Connor Behan (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean by catering for the audience; you sometimes have to show mistruth because it's more believable than truth. See the lizard-like dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, despite the film makers knowing and acknowledging them as birds. We don't want to see massive, feathery raptors, because we know them as pebbly, reptilian beasts. drewmunn talk 07:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Tss you Turkish should be glad, at least you're being depicted with lots of cultural and historical buildings. Everytime the Netherlands appears in a movie we're all stoned, living in windmills and speaking German or were greedy, wooden shoe wearing bastards that have accidently gilded their privates. However my Turkish friend do not despair, there is hope. We have combated this problem by laughing it off and not really caring that much in the first place. After all its just a movie. 213.10.125.17 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn! You mean it's not true?! Well how do you explain this view of Amsterdam taken last week? Half my illusions of the NL are shattered! You'll be telling me next that there is something other than tulip fields tended by dope smokers! ;) - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes usually have an element to truth to it, but when it comes to Turkey and Turks, what they do is take Arabian stereotypes (totally different) and apply them to us with the silly reasoning that Turks -> Muslim -> Arabs. Nevermind that our religion traditions is light years apart from the fanatical, fundamentalist beliefs of Arabs. There is no desert in Turkey - it is actually one of the most fertile countries in the world, yet Hollywood seems to always show deserts and dust. And women here dont wear Arabian clothes like black burkas for women. Its not like they are showing Turks wearing Kalpak which was an authentic part of Turkish culture. No, they depict Arabs and Arabia. Thats why people here are so angry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek (talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

...and there you go, stereotyping Arabians! Not all Arabs are fanatical fundamentalists, but you've just stereotyped them as such. You understand that what you wrote was not done out of spite, but people may take offence to your sweeping generalisation. In fact, your text could be read to imply that the Arabian culture is backward, which is just as untrue as the points you make about Turkey. As I've said before, some things are put in films for technical reasons, such as the sanded roads and overexposure, some for artistic vision (lighting conditions again, and colour choices), and some to cater for the audience's preconceptions. None of it is done as a hate campaign. Some may be down to slip-ups or common mistakes (see also: how annoyed I get when spaceships make sounds or people survive nukes in fridges). If I were to watch Skyfall, and not be from the UK, I'd think that Scotland is all heath and rolling hills, and that England was just London. The fact that the Skyfall scenes were filmed down the road from me, in Southern England, doesn't cause uproar among the Scots, nor would outsiders guess that a location an hour outside London look like the most remote part of Scotland. It's all about representation, and the scenes in Turkey, to outsiders, look like a foreign country. If I didn't know where it was set, I may not have guessed Turkey straight away, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is the fact that it looked exotic to the audience, and that's all that was required of the location. drewmunn talk 14:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Turks are upset in the same way a Dutch would be upset if they were shown as Arabs and Netherlands as Arabia or any other different culture. Showing a Dutch wearing wooden shoes is similar to a Turk wearing a Kalpak. It is outdated and happens only in cultural events nowadays, but at least relevant. Thats is the point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes well as I said we're often depicted as speaking German. (Hell even the english word "dutch" comes from the German word for German) It's most likely because the two can sometimes sound similar to English speakers and German is the better know language. From western eyes the Turkish culture can seem simmilar to that of it's neighbours on the Arabian peninsula. And as always flanderization carries on http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization Anyway as I said don't take it too seriously.213.10.125.17 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

MGM picture ?

I just bought the DVD. When putting the DVD in to the player "20th Century Fox" -logotype is the first that comes on the screen. But after the choice of audio and subtitles, and the real start of the film, "Columbia pictures" appears insted. This also applies to the end of the casting credits. "A Columbia Picture release". (No more MGM/United Artists) Boeing720 (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should take a closer look at this, I think Boeing may be partially correct here. The BBFC seems to confirm that Sony Pictures Releasing distributed the film in the UK. I doubt the BBFC would make a mistake on something like this, since the distributor has to submit the film to them for classification (the BBFC also confirm that Fox is the home video distributor). Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the official website (go to the bottome of the page and move your mouse to very near the bottom: further details appear) the following info regarding copyrights etc appear:

---MGM & Columbia Pictures name and logo---

------------Dividing line-------------

20th Century Fox logo

Home Entertainment distributor of SKYFALL (look out for the Home Video release in 2013) and all the other 22 movies in the James Bond series.

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, FOX and associated logos are trademarks of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and its related entities.

Looking at my UK DVD, on the spine is the MGM name and logo (no others), while on the back the copyright notice is in the names of both MGM and 20th C Fox. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be careful with logos, because sometimes they end up there for contractual reasons. It was the same for Gone with the Wind: MGM put up half the funding in return for the distribution rights but it was Loewe's (the parent company) that actually distributed it. The MPAA (the US BBFC equivalent) say that the film was submitted to them by Columbia (see [1]) which seemingly confirms that Columbia was the US distributor. This makes sense on some level, since Columbia was a partner in the production, so it makes sense that they would distribute it in the US. If they don't have an international distribution arm, then it also follows that Sony Pictures (which Columbia is a subsidiary of) would perhaps distribute in places outside of the US, which seems to be the case at least in the UK. I'm not saying that MGM didn't distribute it somewhere, since the company's infrastructure is such a mess these days it is possible its brand is still in operation in some places, but I think it's better to rely on secondary sources for this type of thing, because a logo can mean literally anything. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Plot synopsis changes

Link. I don't think these changes improve the article at all but would rather wait until others have a chance to comment. I also do not believe that the cast descriptions were in any way redundant. - Fantr (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not too much of a fan of the changes, but I'll happily defer to SchroCat on any matter in this field. The plot wasn't bloated before the change, and it seems to focus too much on fairly trivial details now. drewmunn talk 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I also intend to defer to SchroCat regarding these changes. - Fantr (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that if two editors prefer the previous version it is perfectly proper to revert the changes! Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto from me too: I'll revert on the basis of this consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All hail SchroCat.

On a serious note. I agree. He is currently known within the James Bond Wiki Community as the foremost expert. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd usually make such a revert if consensus was in favour of it, but the editor in question is of a much higher standing than me, so I preferred to bring on board someone who knew a lot about the overall project. drewmunn talk 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit I got a few things wrong, e.g. the timing of the revelation, which I realized after reviewing the movie, shrapnel vs. bullet. However, the reversion has its own problems. You don't consider it important to explain Silva's motives more fully? M doesn't come under pressure to resign, she is told she will be shown the door. It isn't a public inquiry, but a board of inquiry; they're not going to air their top secret problems in public. At the end, it is worded so that it sounds like Silva gives her his gun, not exactly how it happens. There are trivial details, e.g. Bill Tanner, helicopter armament. "On her return from the meeting, MI6's servers ..." is not only poor grammar, but also inaccurate. M hasn't returned yet, otherwise she would have been caught in the explosion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are some minor kinks, but much of what you clarified is not plot-important. Silva's more complex motives are explained sufficiently between the plot and his character entry. M is put under pressure, we don't really need to explain the politics behind the exact method. drewmunn talk 06:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

His motives are explained? Where? All it says is that he's a former employee. A synopsis should be self-contained. There are more errors and issues, but I'm just not connecting with this film somehow. Maybe my expectations were too high. If you all are satisfied with what's there, I don't care enough to fight for what it lacks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's enough in my opinion to gauge the character within the summary. However, I'm always willing to be proven wrong, so I'll locate some willing hermits from the world of "never seen Skyfall" to read the summary and tell me what they think the film's about, and see if there's any confusion. drewmunn talk 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Myself and an IP user are being reverted. I think the IP's word usage is better. And the fact that the two users are becoming abusive over the issue is out of line. Could more people respond? Basically, ‎SchroCat's refusal to allow another word usage besides his desired word usage in the article is nothing more than article ownership. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) The edit in question is this here [2]. I like it better the way the IP had it. I disfavor the way SchroCat has put it. It flowed better to me the other way. Thank you.AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'd just like to point out that at no time has SchroCat (nor myself, in my opinion) crossed the line from correct behaviour into abusive. However, your behaviour has been far from perfect yourself. I left you a friendly warning message on your talk page which, as with many other editor's warnings in the past, has been deleted (deleting doesn't make them disappear, you know). You have also ignored protocol designed to stop edit warring; after the IP revert, you should not have reverted the edit made by SchroCat, but started a discussion here immediately. I am not saying that anybody was faultless in the way it was handled, but you should not blame other people when you are a cause of issues. Finally, SchroCat's reversion was marked good faith. He did not assume bad faith for the original edit, and reverted back to a summary that has been decided through much discussion here. This is not article ownership, but acknowledgement of consensus. drewmunn talk 07:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The IP made a GF edit, which was reverted. At that point the talk page should have been used to discuss it. You should not have edit warred, especially given your rather questionable reversion of Fantr's edit on the M (James Bond) article and the message I left on your talk page: your actions in stalking Fantr across numerous pages is questionable, and to react by reverting one of my edits even more so. You have compounded your problematic stance by edit warring further and another, independent editor has reverted you again. The IP's edit was reverted because it was a poor one (although was in GF) partly because it introduced an error, which you re-introduced. The second part of the edit added nothing to the summary. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Questioning some of the sources used in this article. For example, there's a section that reads: Principal photography was scheduled to take up 133 days This [3] is the source that's used to support that but where does it say anything about 133 days in this source.AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See the line in that source "Day 103 of the Skyfall shoot (with another 30 left to go)." drewmunn talk 08:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

M's Real Name, Floating Casino, the Aston Martin DB5, Hong Kong and William Tell

I am currently in an edit war with SchroCat. I am new here and so it is understandable that I am not too experienced when it comes to making Wikipedia edits, but I think that some of my content should be included. For instance, under the Cast section, I put M's real name in brackets because I thought that it was important. Yet it was removed. I know it sounds trivial, but if Silva's real name has been inserted under the Cast section, then why can't M's real name be there too? Furthermore, I understand that it may seem like a minor gripe (for which I apologise), but I mentioned that the casino in Macau was a 'floating casino', yet 'floating' was edited out. If it was a floating casino (which it is), then why edit 'floating' out? Also, I mentioned that Bond took his Aston Martin DB5 out of storage, which I think is a pretty significant plot point, considering that it's the only way they can get to Scotland. And it is used in the final battle itself, so at the very least, the Aston Martin can be regarded as a plot device. And lastly (this just came to mind), shouldn't we mention Hong Kong? After all, it is one of the most important of the key plot points of Skyfall - and one could argue that this is the entire reason for the events of this film. Let me know what you guys think - again, I'm new here so please go easy.

Edit: another minor gripe came to mind. With regards to Silva's execution of Severine, I mentioned that he killed her in a scene reminiscent of William Tell. While this might be construed as interpretation of the plot and not summary, it is pretty obvious that this is what the scriptwriter (John Logan, if I remember correctly) was intending. So (and correct me if I'm wrong, by all means), isn't this considered as part of the primary source? I look forward to your responses. SlayerDarth (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

I'll start with the basics in the form of the plot; the fact that he takes a certain car out of storage isn't plot important, it's fanservice. It's noted that they get to Scotland, so we can assume they have transport (we similarly don't note, for instance, that Bond unholsters his gun before shooting people). It's not much of a plot device, and its destruction has no bearing on the overall plot. I'm not going to go into too much detail regarding M's name, but I have difficulty accepting something that's seen for a split second written on screen. This sort of thing is mocked up by a production designer somewhere with barely any guidance beyond the description in the script (No doubt "Bond is handed a box", nothing more). Similarly, we don't know that's her real name. If you were a high ranking secret service agent, would you use your real name? It's possible it's a retrospective cover used to protect any family that have survived her, and to ensure security. As far as "floating", word count should be stuck to, and anything unnecessary is trimmed away. The fact that it is floating is not plot important in any way, so it doesn't need to be there. This is where it ends for me, however, because I haven't seen the film for a couple of months and I have, therefore, forgotten what takes place in Hong Kong. I know stuff happens in Shanghai, and that's mentioned in the summary, but if you could remind me, I'll comment on their plot importance (although it says something that I can't remember it, yet can coherently describe the plot). drewmunn talk 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring, of course, to M's tenure as station chief of Hong Kong. Obviously, that might not be a key plot point, but Silva's capture and torture by the Chinese is a key plot point. In the page's summary of the plot, it talks about Silva being a former MI6 officer, but it doesn't talk about his motives - and his imprisonment by the Chinese was a key factor in turning Silva into a criminal.

Also, Daniel Craig's Bond knew M's username and password in Casino Royale - so it can be argued that Bond knows M's real name. Also, these are M's personal effects, so presumably they were kept in a safety deposit box, with their location only known by M. Even though she is an eminent figure in MI6 and therefore I can understand why you think that she would want to keep her name a secret, I think that we must not overlook the fact that Daniel Craig was able to gain access to her MI6 account. If he's capable of doing that, then I think it's fair to assume that Bond is capable of knowing her real name. Thus, I maintain that her real name is Olivia Mansfield. SlayerDarth (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

That seems like an awful lot of OR to me! The Hong Kong thing isn't too plot significant, although it's far more significant than the car. Anyway, back to the name... Just because Bond knows M's name doesn't mean that it's the name on the box. That box was prepared by the solicitor (or MI6 probably) post-mortem. Anyway, the contents of the box weren't in a safe box, they were on her desk. If it was a cover name, and knowing that her real name is a secret, then he'd not really stand there and say "Oh, her real name's *** ******, not Olivia Mansfield". He's a good agent, he knows the value of such information. Anyway, all this is OR in it's own right, we have no way of knowing if it's one or the other, or just the production designers playing their own little game. drewmunn talk 18:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong is very significant plot-wise...that is what triggered the events of Skyfall. M handed over Silva to the Chinese, who tortured him. Silva becomes hateful of M, and so plots her downfall. It's essentially how the premise came about. Hong Kong is very significant as far as the plot goes.

Also, the real name of the novel version of M was Miles Messervy - so there is a slim chance that their title can be attributed to their surnames. The novel M was called just that because his surname was Messervy, and the film M was called just that because her surname was Mansfield. And now the new M has the fortune of having Mallory as a surname.

It is likely that they wanted M's real name to be a secret i.e. not reveal M's real name in the dialogue, because her death is the unexpected surprise of the film. They wanted it to be subtle, and therefore hoped that someone would spot M's real name. Besides, even if Bond knew the value of such information as you pointed out, she's dead so it's not as if it really matters anyhow. Eve could just look at the name on the box and it wouldn't really matter, in light of M's death. Furthermore, I don't think M has any existing relatives left anyhow, not since her husband died. If she hasn't got anyone left, I don't see why M would keep her name a secret.

Anyway, the reveal of M's real name was probably intended as a payoff for the viewer. That's probably why hardly anyone at Eon knew about this. I don't think it's a coincidence. SlayerDarth (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

Yes, but the plot is still completely understandable without it. We know he was in MI6, and now he's not. It would add extra to know it's revenge, but I'm not sure it's actually plot necessary, we can easily see he's got something against his employers. As for onwards (not sure what this word was meant to be, spell check corrected it and I didn't even notice.), the books live in a different continuity to the films, and anything where you find you have to use the phrases "slim chance", "probably", or "I don't think it's a coincidence" constitutes OR. Most people at Eon probably didn't know because a group of two or three people probably thought it would be funny to write it on the box they were tasked with constructing. However, as you can see, I'm using "probably" as well, so there's proof that nobody knows for sure. We'd really need a statement from the filmmakers confirming this fact if we are to include it. It's like the Robin controversy; an extra made an "R" sign that looked like the Robin logo, and it made it into the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises, and it set everyone off saying that Robin would be in the movie. It was in no way a precursor to the later events, simply someone having fun with their job. drewmunn talk 19:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hong Kong: the location is immaterial, to some extent (especially when we are dealing with a tight word count. We already mention that he worked under M and gone rogue. Hong Kong has little significance outside of that main fact.

The M thing is an odd one. The first head of MI6 was Mansfield Smith-Cumming and he signed his letters C. Not C for Cumming, but C for Chief. Fleming knew him and would have known about the C and its origins (as well as his use of green ink etc, that he gave to Messervy in his novels). EVERY head of MI6 since Cumming has used the initial C and the green ink. Fleming couldn't use C in the novels, so he went with M instead. (And it's interesting to note that Maxwell Knight of MI5 used to sign his memos as M). Either way, the signature M (or C) doesn't match the name of the respective head of 5 or 6. It's all a slightly moot point, but—as has been discussed elsewhere—we keep the name out until it appears in dialogue in a future film. At that point it'll be fine to insert. Most of your posting on this has no basis in any reliable source at all, which kind of makes it ineligible for inclusion.

A very minor point, but could you indent your replies in talk threads by using one more colon than the person before you? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

William Tell is the one point that I think should be worked into the article somehow. Even without a source, the allusion is obvious. And it would allow the Skyfall article to link to an article that doesn't have to do with pop-culture. Connor Behan (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

" Even without a source": No, no, no, no, no! And again, just to make it clear: NO! Nothing without a source, ever, or we just turn into fan-based wikia, rather than an attempt to be an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all to easy to quote Wikipedia's policy of always needing sources. Are you honestly telling me that if a movie says "to be or not to be, that is the question" we are only allowed to mention that it's from Hamlet, if the director of said movie has given a patronizing interview where he says "oh by the way, in case you didn't know, I quoted Hamlet"? That would be citation overkill. Connor Behan (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait: apples falling - surely that's a reference to Isaac Newton? Or perhaps the gravity of the situation? Yes, of course we need to cite a reliable source to William Tell. And Citation overkill has absolutely nothing to do with this at all: "If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability." A citation supporting something that is not obvious (which William Tell isn't) isn't overkill: it's the very basis of what we are about in terms of reliability. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree there, citation overkill would be if we cited every single thing we wrote, no matter how obvious. The fact that we can say a certain part alludes to William Tell shows that we recognise a link, although it's a far cry from being a reference in itself. How many lectures did you have to sit through in education where you disassembled, frame by frame or word by word, a film, novel, or poem and analysed every decision made by the creator? We don't say that every use of a dolly zoom alludes to Alfred Hitchcock, so we'd need a citation saying that it's a deliberate allusion. It's possible (only slimly) that it was simply in the writer's mind, not knowing where from, and he liked the effect of it, but it wasn't deliberately a pastiche. drewmunn talk 08:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm still not going to add it. But "the shot glass scene is a deliberate reference to William Tell" is a stronger statement than "the shot glass scene is similar to William Tell". Because then, intentional or not, the two sources we are using are simply Skyfall and William Tell. Now maybe you think this is synthesis, but if not, there are some fairly neutral wordings we could use. We could even use a link with no explicit mention: "Silva challenges Bond to shoot a shot glass off the top of Sévérine's head but kills her after he fails to do so." Connor Behan (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I am more comfortable with the phrase: "find a reliable source". You're going well over the line into WP:OR and synthesis here. it is not an obvious connection, so has to carry a source. Without it there is no way this should go into the article. I'll leave you with the relevant part of WP:PSTS (which is also quoted in WP:FILMPLOT: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source". William Tell falls slack bang in the middle of a synthetic, interpretive claim, and needs a source. Even the fansites don't bother going down this route! - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but isn't that accidental? I suspect that the William Tell reference would be allowed to stay on the Wikia site if I added it. Nevertheless, I will keep looking for a reliable source in case there is one. All I can find are hundreds of blogs that all notice the reference and are not reliable. Connor Behan (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikias have different guidelines for what material is appropriate for inclusion than Wikipedia itself does. Anytime we're adding a reference to Wikipedia because "we know it's true" we're falling squarely into the realm of original research. Doniago (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of citation tags

Guys, stop removing the citation tags. Right now, there's far too much on this article that isn't sourced. Nothing in the opening is sourced. And nothing in the plotline is sourced. This is all worthy of having citation tags. This article is a mess of unsourced material and needs rework. I'm assuming it got it's A-class a long time ago and needs to be effectively reviewed again. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, read WP:LEAD. THE LEAD DOES NOT CARRY CITATIONS. The lead summarises the remainder of the article which does carry the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a word of warning, I'd refrain from any edits to the article page until the above discussion is closed. Also, this article passed a Good Article test, and was deemed to be perfectly well cited. drewmunn talk 07:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot section has no sources whatsoever. It's a mess and needs a citation tag. Technically, according to wiki policy I can remove the whole section if I wish as it's all unsourced. It's either the tag or the source. How do you explain the plot section? Also, please stop with the caps. It's akin to yelling. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot section needs no citation tag. See WP:FILMPLOT. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Plot sections don't need citations, per WP:FILMPLOT: "descriptions of [film] plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". Please ensure you read the relevant guidelines before making such summaries of content. drewmunn talk 07:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And where exactly within that policy does it say verifiable sources are not necessary. Rather conversely, this citation section here Plot summary/citations on how to write a plot summary seems to suggest that citations are in fact needed. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've just written above "descriptions of [film] plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". Please ensure you fully read guidelines and, for that matter, other talk posts. drewmunn talk 08:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well this policy I'm showing you from here Plot summary/citations states: All interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we have absolutely no "interpretation, synthesis or analysis" in the plot. We have "description" only. What is seen on the screen is described in the summary. Nothing has been drawn from or inferred by the film, which is why the film is itself the primary source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no interpretation, synthesis, or analysis of the plot. It is a summary. Examples of things requiring sources would be if we said "Bond's journey is akin to that of Roger Rabbit", or saying if the top fell in Inception, or something similar. You're misinterpreting that guideline. drewmunn talk 08:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Lead here Lead reads the following:

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.

I have just challenged it.AmericanDad86 (talk)

You cannot just say "I challenge that". You have to have grounds to challenge it, even after reading the rest of the article. That challenge could be, for instance, a source that suggests otherwise. drewmunn talk 08:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding to the rule. WP:Lead doesn't say anything about grounds. And don't tell me what I don't have grounds on. I believe that with the amount of material in this article, that needs appropriate sources in the lead. Bottomline. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And how am I supposed to know that all this is sourced just based on it being in the lead. I don't know whether or not it's sourced elsewhere. That's my grounds.AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, I've challenged it and just because you feel as though it doesn't mean it doesn't get sourced. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (twice) It says that it is determined "on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". That consensus exists on this article, which (along with the majority of Wikipedia articles) uses the sourced material from the article to write the lead. If you can find something in the lead that is not sourced elsewhere, please feel free to raise the issue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) many times, I think we should start taking it in turns...I am not "adding to the rule", I'm explaining basic protocol. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the lede, nor how citation works within the article. Just because you cannot find the source in the article doesn't mean it's not there. The closest you could come to that challenge would be to ask here for citation, and we'd point you to the source in the article. As I said earlier, the article, in almost the exact state it is now, passed a GA review. There is no problem with the citation levels, else it would have been picked up. drewmunn talk 08:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but you two editors who have likely had a history of editing together as proven by the editing history of this article do not represent a consensus. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We know we do not represent consensus. This is the one of the first articles that we have edited together in any major capacity, and the work we have done in the past on it was subject to serious discussion prior to its inclusion. Look at, for instance, the archived conversation on the plot summary that took place a few months ago. drewmunn talk 08:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few hundred people editing this article since October 2011. None have tried to force citations into the lead, none have demanded it. There is an unwritten consensus that this is appropriate, as it is for the majority of Wiki articles. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could one of you direct me where all this information is sourced within the article. You're claiming all of it is sourced so:

Skyfall premiered in London at the Royal Albert Hall on 23 October 2012 and was released in the United Kingdom on 26 October 2012 and the United States on 9 November 2012. It was the first James Bond film to be screened in IMAX venues, although it was not filmed with IMAX cameras. The film's release coincided with the 50th anniversary of the Bond series, which began with Dr. No in 1962. Skyfall was positively received by critics and at the box office, becoming the 14th film, as well as the first Bond film, to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide. As of March 2013, it is the seventh-highest-grossing film of all time, the highest-grossing film in the UK, the highest-grossing film in the Bond series, the highest-grossing film worldwide for both Sony Pictures and MGM, and the second-highest-grossing film of 2012. The film won several accolades, including the BAFTA Awards for Outstanding British Film and Best Film Music; the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture; and was nominated for five Academy Awards, of which it won two: Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers won the award for Best Sound Editing, and Adele's theme song won Best Original Song. AmericanDad86 (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Release and reception section for most. The awards info is in the Accolades section. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's very general. I'll need specifics. AmericanDad86 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you need to read the section. Your actions are not in good faith here, and your rather WP:POINTy questions do little to either lead to a consensus or help in improving the article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The claims in the lead are sourced in the article and therefore verifiable; it just doesn't carry citations which is an accepted convention on Wikipedia for leads. You will find very few featured articles with citations in the lead because it is considered poor practice to have a claim in the which isn't included in the article body. Also, in regards to the plot, the film itself is used as a primary source for plot details, which is acceptable provided the editors do not add their own interpretations, and the film is effectively cited by the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Betty, SchroCat and drewmunn are all correct about the use of citations, about WP:LEAD, and about WP:FILMPLOT, AmericanDad86. I'm sorry to say this, but it is also correct that at this point you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and one which isn't supported by consensus guidelines. I need to join my colleagues in asking you to stop, and to please familiarize yourself with these bluelinked guidelines/policies. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur that citations are not required in the lead section per WP:LEADCITE. Citations are generally used in the lead section for controversial claims. For example, the Featured Article intelligent design has citations throughout its lead section. Here, though, I do not think there is anything controversial that requires an upfront inline citation. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else was left with an AmericanDad86 ANI threat on their talk page, but he just left not one but two on mine, with baseless accusations. I deleted them. Five editors have now pointed out his misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and/or have cautioned him on his behavior here. If he's moved on to the next stage, harassment on talk pages, we should be aware. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

He's not gone that far with me, but from his edit history, it seems like something he's fairly familiar with as a concept (unlike the actual guidelines with which he's threatening). Note that almost anything you write on his talk page will be deleted fairly promptly, so check back through that page history, and you'll find some good stuff for character profiling. He'll delete warnings (friendly or not), so he's not oblivious to his wrongdoing; we're dealing with someone who is disruptive and knows it. drewmunn talk 17:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm gutted... I only got one! Shame he didn't follow through with any of his threats. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to this dispute in particular, but it's my regrettable opinion that AD is developing a pattern of pointy behavior as evidenced at Talk:American Dad! as well as here. I also find their "Retired" template inappropriate given their activity levels. If they are going to continue with this trend (and I hope they won't, as they have made a number of positive contributions as well) then this may need to be addressed as a problem in and of itself. I do apologize if this isn't the place to bring this matter up, but I see a number of editors discussing behavior extending beyond this article. Doniago (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the first mainstream evidence that this is repeating behaviour on his part, and certainly something that should be kept in check. Fancy starting "WikiProject Possible Major Problem Stalkers"? drewmunn talk 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No. But if in editors' estimations it is an issue, then off the top of my head an WP:RFC/U may be in order, provided attempts to communicate directly with AD are unproductive. Doniago (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to communicate are deleted from his talk page or, if you're lucky, simply ignored. I'd be happy to certify an RFC/U if someone (SchroCat's probably best due to his involvement) would join me. drewmunn talk 07:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm borderline on it, and would have gone for it like a shot until this self-reversion today stayed my hand. It's only one edit, but (if I try and summon reserves of depleted GF) it does show a more calm approach (along with no further troublesome edits here). Close, and may yet still have to happen if further trouble arises, but lets see how the action pans out over the next week or so. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait on that as well, hopefully he's had an epiphany. That way, we can all wash our hands of this madness and continue on our way. drewmunn talk 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How about now? Doniago (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent plot additions

An IP has recently added additional detail to the Plot section that relates, amongst other things, to the types of cars used in the film etc. Their last edit summary encapsulated their thinking: "The DB5 is illustrative of Skyfall's central theme - Bond's obsolescence - as well as serving as a link to previous films in the franchise, on its 50th anniversary". While this may be true, the plot section is hardly the location for it and it is in breach of WP:FILMPLOT ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source"). There may be a place for it in a Themes section, but only where backed up by reliable sources. I have invited the IP here to share his views, rather than have his fifth attempt at forcing the information into the article. - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that; such statements are well into the realms of GCSE Literature analysis rather than encyclopaedic summations. drewmunn talk 08:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur. If he has sources to back up this particular interpretation they can be incorporated into the article in an appropriate section (reception/themes/analysis). The sole purpose of plot section is to just summarise the narrative of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree too. It doesn't belong in the plot section at all. The themes section might by the right place but only if it is sourced. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs a reference. Otherwise, it's original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Moneypenny's name - revisited

A long discussion was held here some months ago regarding identifying Eve as Moneypenny in the first line of the plot section, with the outcome that consensus was reached that this identification would not be made until describing the ending, thus reflecting the narrative as told on screen. These discussions can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skyfall&oldid=520770777

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skyfall&oldid=524010846

A wikipedia moderator, or administrator or whatever, also intervened and made the decision that to identify Eve as Moneypenny in the opening paragraph when the film had not was not an accurate reflection of the narrative (although I am mysteriously unable to locate the ruling now).

And yet "someone" has seen fit to change it back. So I'll change it back so that its correct, as previously decided, and would direct anyone who disagrees to read the previous discussions and, if possible, find the ruling, which I'm unable to do. Nsign (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of the name you refer to is somewhat dated. The consensus can change over time, which I think is what has happened here. There was a lot of hoo-har in the first place about the "revealing" of the name, but most of it was to do with it being a spoiler, which is why the circumstances have now changed as the film has been on release for some considerable time now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The basis of the final decision had nothing to do with "spoilers" as you well know - that's why Moneypenny's identity remained in the lead. The issue was the plot sections and the misleading impression of having the character identified as Moneypenny at that point in the narrative when she was not. I see no evidence of any consensus having been changed - rather I think someone has changed it because they wanted to.

I've now found the final decision, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skyfall/Archive_3. Without any further consensus to overturn this decision, the removal of "Miss Moneypenny" in the first line of the plot section stands:

"When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"

Nsign (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Also - do not engage in an edit war with me again unless you now have consensus to overturn this. Nsign (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD I reverted your Bold edit. You have reverted, which is edit warring. Do not do so again until the discussion here has finished. The addition of the name was made back in March by an IP editor and has remained since: that is the current consensus on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not a "consensus", as you well know. Its been edited and no one's noticed until now. There has already been a discussion and a decision was made. Nothing has come to light that would affect that decision. So I'm taking this further. Nsign (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Its an implied consensus that the text has been in place since March. As I have already indicated, the consensus, and therefore the "decision" can and has changed. Please feel free to take it further if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Have taken it to dispute resolution and requested you be advised to refrain from reverting edits based on discussion, consensus and decision (rather than "implied consensus"). I have no intention of listening to you fart around with justifications you've pulled out of thin air or with allowing users to sneak through changes based on personal preference when they think no one is looking. Nsign (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your snide accusation, and for your thought that I "fart around" on here. You should know that the original change was initially made by a third party, not me. Furthermore, others have also reverted back to this version (see this edit). So that means that three editors consider this to be the acceptable version against which you are trying to force your preferred choice. I shall, of course comment further at the DRN, despite your move towards uncivil language and comments. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

All irrelevant - I don't care who made the original change, they shouldn't have done it without consensus when one had already been reached. Three editors' preference still doesn't overturn the existing consensus and decision. You either follow WP procedure or you don't, and if you don't then others will notice. Nsign (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are unable to grasp the fact that the consensus can change, and did so eight months ago. (By the way, Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is also WP procedure too...) - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And it reads, "in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". This was not done and considering the amount of discussion involved in reaching the consensus it it clearly within the spirit of the project that it should have been done. Again - three editors is not consensus, "implied" or otherwise. This can continue on the dispute resolution page as appropriate - I won't waste time here arguing against obduracy and wilful misinterpretation of policy to suit personal preference. Admin can decide. Nsign (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As it was a third party who changed it in the first place I suggest you take it up with him. You may wish to try and force your personal preferences onto the page, but please do so without the uncivil overtones and snide accusations in your posts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the one reverting my edit. My "preference" was decided by discussion, consensus and decision, a decision made by an administrator based on a logical and consistent reading of Wikipedia article policy. You have no mandate to revert the edit as you have no new consensus according to any reading of policy. So admin can rule on it. Nsign (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit: I am perfectly entitled to do this on a piece of text that has remained in place for over eight months and has an implied consensus. I suggest we leave the matter with the DRB as you seem to be offering nothing new here. I should only add that you should (re)move your comment from my statement field on the DRN: it's a field for my statement, not for your response. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No you're not, unless you can point me to the WP page that defines and specifies "implied consensus" and how it overturns an actual consensus and decision, without discussion. Until then you're just blowing smoke. Nsign (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you to keep repeating your thoughts, rather than coming up with anything new: the DRN is running and I am happy to leave it there, rather than going round in pointless circles. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Subtext: "I know I'm wrong." Nsign (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You may well know you are wrong: I believe you are too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Then it's a shame you've failed to demonstrate why. "Believing" isn't enough, matey. Nsign (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not your "matey": please do not address me as such. I'll also spin it back on you: you have failed to demonstrate why you think you are correct. As I have already stated, I see little point in repeating the same circular argument and am happy to leave it to the DRN and to any other passing editors to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nsign, it is the current consensus, it isn't just Schrod's viewpoint.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is this "consensus"? When was it reached? Where was it properly discussed to overturn the existing consensus (reached, I remind you, by discussion, logic and ultimately administrator decision based on the correct reading of WP article policy) as per WP policy? I do not accept there is an "implied" consensus - that's nebulous, unspecific and ignores the previous consensus arrived at via the correct procedure following a full, frank and comprehensive discussion. Changing it back after the process has concluded until somebody notices is not consensus. Rather poor form, actually.Nsign (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:CCC, "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing". In this case it was by an IP editor editing the text. That text has remained in place for four months and is supported by a number of others. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is all I'm hearing from you: complaining about the status quo because it goes against what you want to force on to the article. Drop it and move on: there are more important things to do around here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. What I'm "forcing" on the article is actually a consensus that was arrived at via comprehensive discussion and - I say again because you don't seem to hear very well - an admin's decision based on WP article policy. What you have described variously now as a "de-facto consensus" or "a new status quo" (nice terms and all that, but ultimately meaningless and carrying no weight here) does not overturn that decision or consensus just because no one who objected has noticed until now that the RFC was violated. If you think you have more important things to do, you go and do them (although since I have now noticed that more than one user has mentioned your tendency to over-zealously patrol this page, I have to say I doubt it). But you don't seem to have considered that this is an argument you have already lost. So I'll let admin, again, decide. Matey. Nsign (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Still got a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I see. Let me try and repeat the important bit one more time: THE CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. I'm not sure why this is having trouble getting through. The current form of words has been in place for four months and a number of people seem to be happy with it. Apart from you, it seems. Some great form of stewardship you have on this article! - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"..in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". Did you hear THAT, matey? It is in the policy you keep highlighting, suggesting you haven't actually read it or actually understand it. Consensus reached via discussion and RFC is not to be violated just because something is edited and not noticed for a while. Some of us actually have other stuff to do rather than constantly protect articles from people who decide to ignore policy. Admin can, again, decide. I kind of think I know what they'll say, somehow. Nsign (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and do not edit other users posts just because you don't like them. If you have an issue, take it to admin. Nsign (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We're done here: you're being so utterly childish it's ridiculous. The only thing I will point out to you is that the wording is "in most cases" (my emphasis). Most. Not all: its not compulsory, and I suggest that if you wish to whine about it further, take it up with the IP editor. And please grow up. I suggest we leave it to an admin to decide, because if this goes any further I suspect you'll regress even further into petty and childish insults. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Off you pop then. It's already with admin, for the second time, to rule on an argument you've already lost once because you couldn't interpret policy correctly, or even use common sense. And, you know, even using common sense isn't compulsory. But it is usually advisable. Nsign (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have added clarification regarding the nature of Moneypenny's identity to the cast list. Her true identity was set up as a "reveal" so the article probably shouldn't just ignore that, but it was played as a wink to the audience familiar with the earlier films and was totally irrelevant to the plot i.e. if Skyfall was the first Bond film you ever saw if wouldn't make any difference to the storyline, unlike the Darth Vader reveal or the Keyser Sozer revelation. In view of that, being deliberately obtuse about something that was not integral to the structure of the plot seems a bit "fan wiki", but it seems fair game to cover it in the section about her character so I have slotted it in there. If someone reverts me then fair enough I'll leave the matter to dispute resolution, but we can save a lot of time with just a well placed sensible comment. Betty Logan (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Good addition. But it's not about being "deliberately obtuse" - the character's identity is already in the lead section. Its about reflecting the narrative faithfully in the plot section. Nsign (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "narrative"; there are many many instances where a character's full name is not immediately disclosed, and we don't make an issue of it. If she were formally introduced as "Eve Jones" would we be having this discussion? Remember, the name "Moneypenny" has no meaning for Bond at this stage, only us as an audience, so it is incidental to the plot. Her introduction here is important in the wider context of the Bond series, so I believe it is important to cover the nature of it, but ultimately it's not a plot development. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The character's full name in this instance is a (minor, but still) part of the narrative, and that's why it remains unrevealed until the closing moments. You've demonstrated why yourself without meaning to: if she were called Eve Jones it would indeed remain an irrelevant narrative element. The fact that they set it up as a "reveal" makes it a story point and part of the narrative. But this has all been discussed already and I don't propose to rehash it. Nsign (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A short plot summary doesn't have to mention everything that occurs in the narrative. This one thing is unimportant in that it doesn't affect any of the major plot points. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have to agree with Betty here. While the reveal of Eve's last name at the end of the film is fun for longtime Bond fans, it is irrelevant to the narrative of the film. Plus, the reveal is included in the article a few paragraphs down; so having her full name in the first paragraph doesn't make much of a difference. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point. The "reveal" is already in the lead - prior to the plot section. This is not about revealing her name, or spoilers. It is about the fact that identifying the character as Eve Moneypenny at that point in the plot section gives a misleading impression of the narrative. Nsign (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As the name Eve is not given until the final scene, if we include it in the first line, does that also count as giving a "a misleading impression of the narrative"? - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

‎DonQuixote, according to your last edit summary, Eve's first name isn't mentioned until the final scene either? Thanks for pointing that bit out: according to the logic offered by some, then the lead should probably now read "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative who we find out later is called Eve (and we find out her surname later, but we'll pop that bit in at the end because it's somehow a "plot point", despite not affecting the plot at all) chase a mercenary..." I'm not sure I prefer this version, but it is in line with some overly-narrow interpretations of the rules! - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment If the character's name is "irrelevant", why bother mentioning it in the opening sentence at all, or in the lead? Any assertion that it is "irrelevant" to the narrative of the film is a matter of personal opinion. It is a simple fact that it IS a part of the narrative of the film. Denying it is a denial of reality.

The objection and RFC decision are based on the fact the use of the character's full name in the opening sentence of the plot section gives a misleading impression of the narrative, and we should aim to reflect the narrative as told. To quote from the decision: '"...there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film".'

Now - if, as suggested, the character is referred to as, say, "an unnamed female agent", that would be acceptable as it does reflect the actual narrative.

But still - this is all a rehash of old arguments that were resolved by RFC decision and now rest with a dispute resolution. Nsign (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And I am sure that the admin who looks over this thread will see that you are the loan voice crying against what is now the consensus, with (so far) all other participants agreeing that the status quo represents the new consensus. You may note TransporterMan's last message: "It is clearly possible for intervening discussion or edits to set aside a previous consensus" and I suggest that is what has happened here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

− There is no new consensus. The RFC decision was violated without discussion or advancement of any new evidence or arguments, and nothing new or credible has been presented in this section that invalidates the logic of that decision. So, yes, admin will decide. Nsign (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Errrmmm... Have you noticed how many people have come out and supported your thoughts on this? Against those who have disagreed? WP:CCC, not WP:ICANTHEARYOU. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Errrmmm...sorry, did I miss my cue to say I cared? It isn't a numbers game. If 100 people believe they're right, and only 1 person is actually right, those 100 people are still wrong. That should be a self-evidently logical concept that even you can grasp. And in any case, there already exists a lengthy discussion and RFC decision on this matter where a consensus was reached in my favour in accordance with WP article policy. The RFC was violated without discussion or any new credible arguments being advanced for why it should be ignored in the hope that it wouldn't be noticed. Now it has and admin can rule on whether that was a legitimate action. Nsign (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that the previous RfC decision was based on erroneous information: it was presumed by all that the name Eve was known at the time. As ‎DonQuixote has pointed out, neither her first or surname are known until the final scene, so there is absolutely no logic in only including her first name in the first line, and we're back with something you'll probably find more logical: "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative who we find out later is called Eve (and we find out her surname later, but we'll pop that bit in at the end because it's somehow a "plot point", despite not affecting the plot at all) chase a mercenary...". I'm sure you'll be happier with this version, as its closer to your twisted logic. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Errrmmm...sorry, but your analogy is completely invalid since this is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. If you were saying the character's name was Eve Moneypenny and everyone else was saying that it was Eve Jones you would have a point. But this is a question of whether to state the name of the character in the first paragraph or not, even though it is stated again just a few paragraphs down. Therefore, your opinion doesn't trump that of every other editor on this page who disagrees with you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Chaps, you are simply blowing smoke. The issue is (and always was, if you read the RFC) the following: does identifying the character as Eve Moneypenny in the opening line of the plot section when she has not been identified as such give a misleading impression of the narrative as told? The RFC decision was yes, it did, and I agree with that decision, because it is factually correct as per WP policy (although as I have indicated, I would accept as a compromise describing the character as "an unnamed female agent", if not Eve, as that would also be factually correct as per the narrative). The RFC has since been violated without discussion or any new or credible argument for doing so. That is why it now rests with dispute resolution. All this about whether her name is stated elsewhere is completely irrelevant and nitpicking over what constitutes an "important plot point" are matters of personal opinion. It is simply a fact that it IS a narrative story point, set up as a reveal, and as such should be reflected faithfully in an encyclopedic description of the narrative. As the original discussion and RFC decision made clear. That's all. Nsign (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You seriously want us to refer to a named character as "an unnamed female agent"? Ludicrous. As I mentioned before, the decision of the previous RfC was based on erroneous information. The consensus can and has changed in the interim to the form of word now present, which have been there for the previous four months. To date this conversation has shown only you trying to cling onto an out-dated decision with everyone else trying to demonstrate the policy basis on which it has changed. That is all. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, SchroCat, the Audley Harrison of Wikipedia editors: forever starting fights yet clueless about winning them. Can't you lob a harder ball to hit?

The character isn't named at that point in the plot, so to do so is - as has been repeatedly demonstrated, a mischaracterization of the narrative, as the RFC decided. Plus, if we were to follow your "erroneous information" smoke-blowing: if there is, as you say, no logic in including her first name in the opening section when no name has been stated, there is then also no logic in including her full name. Now if this is the best you can do, admin are going to have a very easy job. Again. Nsign (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Nsign, if you are again going to revert to childish little insults, then I suggest we leave this to the DRN to look over. In the meantime I suggest you would be well advised to read through WP:UNCIVIL and learn how to interact with others in a less objectionable way. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Go and complain to someone if it bothers you so much. I'll interact with others as I see fit and depending on how much intellectual horsepower they can bring to the table. Nsign (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What a very pleasant line of thought you have. Yes, I'm stupid, that's right. Stupid enough to read WP:UNCIVIL – and really dumb enough that I try not to breach it except when I'm pushed too far by people who are clever enough not to have bothered reading it. I'm also such an idiot that I try desperately hard not to insult people who disagree with me, unlike the brainboxes for who think that sarcasm and insults are a really good way to win an argument... - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, its ridiculous. Enough Nsign, please nip this in the bud.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you put it like that, yes OK, you've convinced me. Arf. Nsign (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I Support giving Moneypenny her full name. I see no reason whatsoever to give it. Nsign, you need to take a step back from this conversation as you are behaving in a volatile manner. I have just spent the last hour going through this thread and all of its talk page spin offs and have tried to follow it. However, your malevolent approach to SchroCat and others have left you looking less than endearing. I suggest you go chill out. -- Cassianto ^Talk.

"Malevolent" - why, thank you, sir. Can't say that being thought of as "endearing" troubles me one way or the other, though. I will "chill out" once the dispute resolution has played out and someone has taken the time to form a coherent and credible argument that overturns the previous RFC. Nsign (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Its been and gone, its just that you seem too stupid not to realise it. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Any argument thus far advanced has brought nothing new or credible to the table. And funny how those who whine about WP:UNCIVIL are perfectly happy to ignore it as they choose when they feel hard-done by. Nsign (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When writing about fiction, the plot summary is usually a bare-bones (and rather bland) description of the major plot points that we hang the rest of the article on. Other details, such as a character remaining unnamed until the end of the film, are fleshed out when needed while describing themes, production and such. Betty Logan was correct in moving it from plot (where I clumsily put it) into cast. DonQuixote (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I would suggest that still doesn't address the issue of whether identifying the character at that point in the plot section mischaracterizes the narrative as told. Nsign (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So does having any name there at all, according to your overly-narrow logic. This is at DRN now, so I suggest we leave it there until such time as the issue is decided. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically that's correct, but only if we stick very pedantically to the rules. I've already said using Eve is preferable(as it was before the RFC was violated) as it doesn't imply that the character of Miss Moneypenny has been identified at this point in the narrative. Nsign (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So you're happy to stick rigidly to the rules when you don't want to see one version of the plot, but are happy to allow flexibility if it allows your preferred version to appear? Interesting that. And, btw, the RfC wasn't "violated": the consensus changed over time and the RfC decision became out dated as a result. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You just don't know what you're talking about, do you? I've never suggested "sticking rigidly" to the rules. And simply stating repeatedly that the RFC wasn't violated - when it demonstrably was - and a new consensus was formed - which it wasn't - doesn't make either of those things true. Now let's stop going in circles and let the dispute resolution play out. Nsign (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent the plot because it's mentioned in the article. Her name being revealed at the end is more trivia than essential plot point. DonQuixote (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow that first sentence? The mentioning of the name elsewhere in the article is irrelevant; the issue is whether identifying the character at that point in the plot summary misrepresents the narrative as told. I think it does. The RFC agreed. As to whether it is "trivia" - I think there's a credible argument that its a little more than that, given that it is explicitly set up as a "reveal" in the movie and deliberately withheld, rather than withheld due to a writing oversight. Nsign (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent the plot because it's not a major plot point. It's trivia. Trivia can be mentioned in other parts of the article. Agents Bond and Moneypenny do this. They do that. Silva does this, Silva does that. Film ends. Simple as that. Other details, such as she introduces herself to Bond at the end of the film, can be mentioned in other parts of the article, such as cast or production. DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm...debatable. I'd say the surname of other incidental characters can be regarded as trivia because their names have no significance or meaning to the intended audience. Moneypenny's does and is specifically intended to - which is why the reveal is explicitly set up as a reveal at the end of the film. And even so - it is still a misrepresentation of the narrative as it implies the character has been identified at a certain juncture when she hasn't. Nsign (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The plot summary is not the narrative, and it's not supposed to be. This one detail is not part of the plot. The plot summary is representative of the major plot points. The entire article is representative of the work of fiction, or the narrative. Not mentioning this in plot doesn't misrepresent the plot. Not mentioning this in the plot doesn't misrepresent the narrative either, especially when it's mentioned elsewheres in the article.

Also, apart from the plot summary being an index of key events that the rest of the article can refer to, the plot summary is the least important part of the article. The article proper is the better place to mention specific details, such as she's unnamed in the beginning and her full name is revealed at the end. Come to think of it, the best place to put this bit of trivia is probably casting where it states:

Harris' role was initially presented as that of Eve, an MI6 field agent who works closely with Bond. Despite ongoing speculation in the media that Harris had been cast as Miss Moneypenny,[35][36] this was not confirmed by anyone involved in production of the film, with Harris herself even going so far as to dismiss claims that Eve was in fact Moneypenny, stating that "Eve is not remotely office-bound".[37] According to Harris, Eve "[believes] she is Bond's equal, but she is really his junior".[38]

This can be amended with "In the film, her name isn't revealed until near the end."

Again, the plot summary is not the article. So not mentioning this bit in plot summary isn't that great a deal. It can be mentioned elsewheres, such as in casting, as suggested above. DonQuixote (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"This one detail is not part of the plot." I have to disagree, for the reasons already stated above which I won't repeat, other than to say I do think it constitutes a notable plot point and as such we should simply relate it as it occurs rather than give a misleading impression of how the story unfolds. We should aim for accuracy. If it's so trivial, why is the character mentioned straight away in the lead? I also don't quite follow your references to "not mentioning this in plot", when in fact what we're discussing is the fact that it currently IS mentioned in the plot..? Nsign (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"it constitutes a notable plot point": as has been discussed numerous times by numerous people, it's got nothing to do with theplot of the film, but it notable in terms of the series, which is why it's in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion. And mine is that it does have something to do with the plot of the film. And rather a "numerous" amount of users agreed with me when we had these discussions that led to the first RFC. We are never going to agree on that so let's leave it for admin rather than chase our tails. Nsign (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a simple test, if you can reduce the plot summary to a few sentences and it's not part of the very short and very concise plot summary, then it's not a part of the plot.

Plot: On an assignment, Bond is shot and presumed dead. Silva blows up MI6 headquarters, which draws Bond out of hiding. Bond tracks down and captures Silva. However, all this is a ruse to embarrass and ultimately kill M. Bond tries to protect M and kills Silva, however M dies from mortal injuries. Bond resumes work under a new M.

We can flesh this out to be more readable, such as how Bond tracks Silva (tracks Patrice in Macau, etc.), but no matter what we do, Moneypenny's name not being revealed till the very end is unimportant. It's a detail and not a plot point. Try placing into the the short summary above and it'll seem very out of place...that's because it's not part of the plot. So, no, not an opinion but a demonstrable fact. DonQuixote (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"..if you can reduce the plot summary to a few sentences and it's not part of the very short and very concise plot summary, then it's not a part of the plot". Sorry but I just can't agree. Plus, the summary isn't just a few sentences, and if Moneypenny is mentioned in the plot summary, which she is, I think the character should be identified as per how the narrative unfolds on screen. Although I do acknowledge that you have put forward a coherent argument. Nsign (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)