Talk:Roger Moore

Interesting Inconsistent Editorializing.

Some discussion upon the subject of the worthiness of added content, and the perceived tediousness of it, or not, as determining a fact's right-of-place in an article, exceeding in importance something which is factually accurate, should be interesting. The removal of a contribution, ie, an Edit, because "Nobody is interested in this kind of stuff", (sic), of a small piece which, after removal previously, by another Editor, had been very flatteringly re-inserted: by a third, yesterday: and, so impressed was he, had actually appended verifying Reference Notes ! , quite beyond my own Editorial abilities : thank you. Some irony was felt, when noticing their too-tedious-to-retain status had been exposed below the too-indispensable-to-discard disputed attribution of Moore's influence upon the development of Magnum chocolate lollies, which was retained above it. To retain to an ever-captivated world within the Article the history of Moore's Foreskin, which it does, raises the philosophical question of the quality of literary choices. Hand-cast Editorial opinion's, or general policies regularly applied could either one be a guide: but not both, not consecutively, surely ? Some discussion should be interesting. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The website Discogs.com is unreliable because readers can change the information. See our guide on the question of unreliable references at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources.

If Roger Moore's musical output is discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources (rather than appearing in plain lists) then it is shown to be important to the topic. So if we want to tell the reader about Moore's various 33 or 45 rpm vinyl discs then each one should be described in the literature. Ideally, the description would give the reader some context, for instance, why was Moore doing this thing, or what did he get from the effort. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The site discogs.org is used in 44,735 Wikipedia articles to date. I note that the guide at WP:NOTRSMUSIC is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy, but the recommendations of a WikiProject. I have no argument with the view that the detail in their entries cannot be taken as necessarily reliable, but I have yet to hear of an incident where it listed an non-existent release. It seems ironic to advise against using Discogs to verify that a release exists, then advise the editor to source directly from the actual album covers and liner notes – how is that any less user-contributed? --RexxS (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Morning. Thanks for the reply. If "The website Discogs.com is unreliable because readers can change the information", then that, too, could stand for a fair description of Wikipaedia, nullifying it's Creators' worthy attempt to establish a truthful record of human history. To mention "Why was Moore doing this thing, or what did he get from the effort", (presumably a charitable donation, money, or professional recognition), allows for any trivia to be introduced, (such as the foreskin matter), so long as it had been "Described in the [foregoing] literature". The Editorial inconsistentcy matter, too, remains, as a website's disqualification for consideration, (here, it's Discogs), because of its "Unreliability", wasn't considered important at all to the other Editor who re-inserted it, leaving the impression of truth relying upon arbitrary judgements of Editorial choice, rather than enjoying it's accepted status as intrinsically fine . However, the discussion's been started, and others now have the opportunity to debate it. Thanks, again, Heath St John (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Monte Carlo

In S01E09 of The Saint (The Effete Angler), there is talk about living in Monte Carlo and not paying income tax there.(188.79.46.114 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC))

Time Traveller?

Did he really divorce one spouse and marry another after his death? The dates in the summary box would seem to imply this. Perhaps some thorough date checking might be warranted. 109.148.175.33 (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Portrayed Bond 7 or 8 times?

The first paragraph says he portrayed Bond 7 times but then goes on to say he portrayed Bond a record 8 times, "Moore's Eighth appearances as Bond, from Live and Let Die to A View to a Kill, are the most of any actor in the Eon-produced entries." Am I missing something? There were only 7 appearances, right? Please clarify. Thanks. Mickey Smiths (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)