This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
List of James Bond films is the main article in the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2021, when it received 10,028,697 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
- is Casino Royale in 1954, more information here: https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/cr_1954
It features Barry Nelson as James Bond. There is no mention of this in Wikipedia for some reason. Of all the films it is truest to the Ian Fleming original. Perigrimmation (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the inflation figure still based on 2005? Would it not make more sense to update it? 2005 was nearly 20 years ago so seems like there's no point even having an inflation column unless it's something recent for people to relate to. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2005 index is the one used by the source. That's the simple answer. The point of the inflation column is to enable a financial comparison on a level playing field, so I don't really understand the point you are making. It doesn't really matter which index is used, whether it is 2022, 2005, or 1965 because it's all relative. The table uses the one in the source and adjusts the later films to the index so they can be compared too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2005 dollars were 54% more valuable than 2023 dollars. That is a significant difference from the average person's sense of a dollar's worth, which is based entirely on what $1 will buy in 2023. The original purpose of adjusting these dollar amounts was to give the average person in 2005 a sense of the amounts of wealth the franchise has generated (and consumed) over its entire run. The table no longer serves that purpose and should be recalculated and updated, or the adjusted columns removed. Georgelazenby (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of inflation adjustment is to provide a comparative metric for comparing how well the films have performed against each other i.e. it is a normalisation metric. The choice of index—whether it is 2005 or 2023—is in one sense irrelevant, because these films did not collectively gross their revenues in 2005 or 2023. The only valid service it provides is as a basis for comparison, and on that note 2005 is more convenient than 2023 because we only have to adjust the Daniel Craig films i.e. it minimises the overall amount of work and original research. The chart using the 2005 index still tells us the same thing a 2023 index would: Skyfall comes out top, and Licence to Kill is at the bottom, so I disagree that the table "no longer serves a purpose". Betty Logan (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could always publish 2023 inflation normalisations in a reliable secondary source. Then we, a tertiary source, can cite your work. Tertiary sources are slow to update because they rely on reputable secondary sources to do all the work (ie original research). DonQuixote (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible film locations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
