Category talk:James Bond films

Hey! Bring back the template

I can understand adding Category:James Bond movies to all the Bond movies, but why get rid of the templates at the bottom? It gives context and a chronological framework for all the movies (see below). The category page doesn't; it just has a list of the movies. Can't we have both? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:03, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Silly me, not having noticed the {{JamesBond}} template, has added my new template {{Bond movies}} to all movies which didn't already have the {{JamesBond}} left. The new one looks like this:

Silly me... —Gabbe 09:22, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Come to that, I like the idea of the Bond-movie-list template having a tag that actually specifies that it's about the movies. So I have a suggestion: add the non-Eon movies to Template:Bond movies and {{Bond movies}} to any movies that don't yet have it, and change Template:JamesBond to be a list of Bond novels (or even of general Bond topics). Good idea/bad idea? --Paul A 04:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template change

Someone apparently merged the template "JamesBond" with the other template "Bond movies". Since the other is pretty much obsolete now, I was wondering if anyone objected (or has a better idea) to turn the JamesBond template into a template for things relating to James Bond. So far it would include:

• Allies
• Villains
• Bond girls
• Gadgets
• Vehicles
• Theme songs

Any thoughts, additions? K1Bond007 00:47, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I like what you've done with it, but it looks kinda incomplete without links to Bond novels and Bond movies. --Paul A 03:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Science fiction films

Since 8 out of 23 James Bond films are in this category, would it be safe to say that James Bond films are in general science fiction? Also, since most James Bond films have a plethora of gadgets that verge of sceince fiction tech, all of them could be considered science fiction. So, we could just add Category:Science fiction films to the Category:James Bond films, and remove the Science fiction category from those films. Lady Aleena 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to generalize them all as science fiction. The ones that are are already categroized in that category (Moonraker, Die Another Day for example) anyway. K1Bond007 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I did it (per IRC discussion). Lady Aleena 07:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Subcatting to James Bond locations?

Any interest in creating a sub-category for the iconic real-world locations? Or would these be better handled per-film? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Per community consensus such a category is not appropriate and a re-creation would be subject to speedy deletion. As noted in that discussion, articles for real-world places are not defined by their presence in a work of fiction. Creating categories on that basis would lead to an article like New York City being in literally thousands of categories. The presence of a real-world location in fiction is covered by the Category:Works by setting structure. Fort Knox is not defined by the fact that one or more scenes from Goldfinger (film) took place there. However, Goldfinger (film) could arguably be defined as being set in Kentucky and therefore added to Category:Films set in Kentucky. And, indeed, it is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're claiming that Kentucky is a strongly defining characteristic of Rendition (Torchwood) and of Goldfinger (film) (which is set substantially in Switzerland), but that Fort Knox (the only reason that Goldfinger is in Kentucky) is not?

As discussed before, like you I don't consider that all locations are defined by their roles in films. However some are. The Schilthorn wasn't, Piz Gloria atop it was – it was even partially paid for by the film. Khao Phing Kan was unknown in the West before Bond, yet now it's an icon of the Thai coast. These are locations that have an iconic and defining role because of their film appearance. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I make no statement about the Torchwood episode and it is not relevant to this discussion as it has nothing to do with James Bond films. I am saying again that the community has spoken on the subject of categorizing real-world places in relation to their presence in Bond films and other works of fiction, both through the specific discussion of said category and the general absence of such categorization.
• If there were several works set at Fort Knox, then Category:Works set at Fort Knox might be appropriate. Which would still not make placing Fort Knox in either Category:James Bond locations (which does not exist per the expressed will of the community) or Category:Goldfinger (film) appropriate.
• If you can demonstrate through this discussion that there has been a change in consensus regarding this subject, then great. Have at it. If a similar discussion opens elsewhere please advise me on my talk page. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)