Talk:Octopussy and The Living Daylights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Octopussy and The Living Daylights has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Octopussy and The Living Daylights is part of the Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and stories 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 4, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
April 17, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Novels / Short story (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Short story task force.
 
WikiProject James Bond (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of James Bond 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Order[edit]

Why is "The Living Daylights" listed before "The Property of a Lady"? In my copy of the book, the order is "Octopussy", "The Property of a Lady", "The Living Daylights", and finally "007 in New York". Shouldn't the stories be listed in this order in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  • When the book was first published in 1966, it contained only Octopussy and The Living Daylights (hence the title). "Property of a Lady" and "007 in NY" were not added until later editions and therefore should be listed after "Daylights". The article at one point made this distinction clear - perhaps it's been made less clear in subsequent edits? 23skidoo (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We can't call it "usual order" because that implies the 1966 edition was unusual. The order of the stories is only as of the 2002 edition that includes 007 in New York. 23skidoo (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


The events of "The Property of a Lady" takes place in June of 1961 (Tuesday, June 20th is the day of the auction) which would proceed the events of The Spy Who Loved Me since the events in The Spy Who Loves Me" takes place on Friday, October 13th, which occured in 1961.

We know that Bond was operating in North America in "The Spy who Loved Me" as part of Operation Bedlum. Therefore the events of "Thunderball" would have taken place probably in June of 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdogg (talkcontribs) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Octopussy and The Living Daylights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article for GA. I should have the review finished within a week at most (likely less time, though). Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is very well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All the sources I could check seemed OK, except for the points below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It covers the topic well
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No problems.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The one image used has a FUR and is suitably captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, very nice work. Here are a few issues:

  • The year for Barnes & Hearn was 2001 in References and 1997 in Bibliography. I presumed References was the most recent and more likely correct, so I changed Bibliography to 2001, but please check that this is correct.
  • Yes, 2001 is the correct date and I'm not altogether sure why 1997 was in there!
  • A few of the books in Bibliography (Linder, Comentale...) aren't referenced. Would it be better to put these in a Further Reading section?
  • Done
  • The sfn link doesn't work between McLusky et al. Horak in the References section and the book in the Bibliography section. (Not a big deal, but might as well be smooth and consistent whenever possible.)
  • Done
  • In the first line of Plots#The Living Daylights, should 272 be in quotation marks? I imagined it to be similar to 007, which isn't.
  • Done
  • Your text states "Fleming had already used Blackwell as the model for Pussy Galore in his novel Goldfinger". The source says "Blanche Blackwell, the love of his later life, was supposedly a model for the Sapphic pilot and martial-arts expert Pussy Galore in Goldfinger." "Supposedly" doesn't sound as certain as what you have written.
  • Done
Hmm, I'm not really comfortable with having "supposedly" in an encyclopedia article. It sounds too gossipy. Sorry, I guess my comment above wasn't clear—that wasn't necessarily the solution I was thinking of. I think if you want to keep the sentence you need to find a way to have just the right balance that shows that this is not definitely a fact. But it's tricky because if the statement shows too little certainty of fact, it invites the question of whether it should be included at all. Would you consider removing the sentence? Or, if you feel strongly you'd like to keep it, yeah, I'm not sure what the best solution would be... Is there any possibility of finding another source to back it up? Moisejp (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Another idea: "Journalist Ian Thomson writes that Fleming may have used Blackwell as..." Moisejp (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I've found a better source, which frames it in a more succinct way, I hope! If it doesn't, then I'll take it out altogether - SchroCat (^@) 19:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The biggest issue is this: in the lead you mention "007 in New York" as being a later edition to the book, but I couldn't find any mention of it in the Release and reception section.
  • Largely because I cannot find any good references as to when it first went in! It certainly wasn't in the early editions but it is in the later editions, although when it first went in in unverifiable at the moment...
Moisejp (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
About, "007 in New York" would one idea be to write "By (19--), '007 in New York' had been added to the book." and you could write the year of the earliest edition that you definitely know includes it. It's not a perfect solution, but sometimes we are limited by our sources. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Done - British Library reference to 2002, which I think may be about the right date... - SchroCat (^@) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've covered a couple of the straightforward ones and I'll sort out the others slightly later today. Thanks very much for the review - much appreciated. - SchroCat (^@) 09:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I've covered it all, but please let me know if there's something I've missed, or something you'd still like to see worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
About the Blanche Blackwell reference, the problem with "joked" is that we really don't know whether he actually believed that it was true or not. If it was "Coward recalled with amusement how..." then that would be better, but I don't know what your source says. If you can't write that, then I'd prefer either taking it out, or my suggestion of "Journalist Ian Thomson writes that Fleming may have used Blackwell as..." (which sounds OK to me). I'll leave it up to you how you want to deal with that. In the meantime, I'm passing this article. Good work! Moisejp (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I took it out altogether: it was not central to this subject and I wasn't happy with the phasing anyway, so out it came. - SchroCat (^@) 05:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Uppercase in "The"[edit]

  • In "Octopussy and The Living Daylights", the capital T in "The" is because this title is the titles of two of the book's component stories ("Octopussy" and "The Living Daylights"), strung together. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Page move request for Octopussy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • How is the capitalization treated by the publisher in the first edition? That should be the guide. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It has nothing to do with it. The format used by publishers may vary wildly from our MoS, which takes precedence. (Look at the image in the infobox, for example: it's in capitals). - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Octopussy "not previously published" is incorrect[edit]

The intro says Octopussy was not previously published, but this is incorrect. Octopussy was serialized in Playboy before the book came out. This page gives a date of March 1966; and the CommanderBond.net website, one of the major fansites, also confirms that Playboy published the story first. Since this is GA I know an IP going in and making changes will be reverted automatically, so someone else will need to make the correction. There are any number of Playboy magazine indexes online that can be examined to confirm the dates. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just goes to show you shouldn't believe or trust the fansites then. It was serialised in the Daily Express way before Playboy: I've corrected, with supporting citation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Good catch; I wasn't aware of the Daily Express publication. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (formerly 70; my IP changed)

TV script?[edit]

It has been said that several of Ian Fleming's short stories in For Your Eyes Only were from an aborted 1959 CBS James Bond television show. Was The Living Daylights one of these? Also have any of the teleplay ideas from Fleming ever turned up anywhere?Foofbun (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Doubtful. It's possible they were, but by the time they were written in 1962-63, Fleming had been sued to his knees over using Thunderball's script for the basis of a novel. He probably wouldn't want to go anywhere near a TV series. The only known teleplay ideas that have turned up for certain are those in For Your Eyes Only, though he was a consultant when The Man from UNCLE was being developed (he gave them the character name Napoleon Solo). 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations section[edit]

As before, I'm hesitant to add anything to a GA as an IP, but I believe it's been stated in a few places that the character name Solange from the 2006 version of Casino Royale was taken from the 007 in New York story. Plus, the epilogue of the Quantum of Solace film - Bond informing an agent that her boyfriend is an enemy agent - is identical to the plot of the short story. While the Solange one could be debated, adding Quantum of Solace to the list appears to be pretty cut and dried. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source to support it and it can go in. -SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is in error when it says that a version of the auction from Property of a Lady was done in The Living Daylights with Timothy Dalton, 1987. The film version of the auction was definitely Roger Moore in the movie Octopussy, from 1983. Somebody please fix this for us, I am reluctant to do so much editing myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.146.66 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at all. It clearly says the auction is in Octopussy with Moore, and that the plot of "The Living Daylights" short story was used within the film of the same name with Dalton. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand Corrected. I didn't read carefully enough. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.146.66 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)