User talk:Fantr/Archive 60

Bond template
That was a good comprimise that works for me. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)
I am conducting a review of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have delisted the article. There are several concerns which have been left at Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1, which need to be addressed if the article is to regain GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

John Pearson on the Kingsley Amis article
"It is fictional, therefore it is a novel". Really? You can't think of non-factual work that isn't a novel? I find that highly surprising and utterly illogical. I haven't reverted your edit again as Amis isn't my focus, but you're giving too much credence to Pearson's work. Have a look at the Ian Fleming Publications classification of the book—under "Bond related books", not under the novels or novelization sections. It's listed alongside the works of two other authors: Ben MacIntyre and Henry Chancellor. Do you want to add them to the succession list too, as it would make it accurate, or just leave in the Pearson connection, despite it being the odd one out. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, thanks for discussing this with me before reverting. I wrote the following before reading your post so some of it may no longer be pertinent.
 * The "previous/next" Bond author box has been on the Amis page since 23 March 2006. In all that time the box has identified John Pearson as the next continuation author. Bond-specialist wiki editors 23skidoo and K1Bond007 upheld this decision.
 * The book is a novel. It is a work of fiction. I do not see how someone can write a Bond novel and not be considered a Bond novelist. The other two titles you mention are non-fiction. Q.E.D.
 * The following news articles refer to Pearson as a Bond author: The Spectator ; Variety_Magazine ; ABC Australia ; The Sydney Morning Herald . This is a small sample. Numerous foreign language publications identify the book as a continuation novel.
 * Glidrose shares copyright on the book. The Ian Fleming estate regards it as a continuation novel . Your post correctly notes that the Fleming estate includes it with Bond-related books. But by that argument we could exclude the novelizations as the Fleming estate does not include them with the novels.
 * The largest Bond fan website identifies it as an official continuation novel. Other websites also refer to it as a continuation novel. Although fan-website practices should not normally influence Wikipedia policy, here fan classification warrants some deference.
 * While some Bond fans do not regard Pearson's book as a true continuation novel, some also do not recognize Christopher Wood's novelizations. Some editors may argue the true line of succession is Fleming-Amis-Gardner with no mention of Pearson or Wood. Other fans - few that they may be - may argue for the inclusion of Mascott and Jenkins. I am an a reasonable inclusionist and believe Pearson's novel and Wood's novelizations are part of the series. Further, Bond's obituary in You Only Live Twice (novel) sets the stage for Pearson's novel: "The inevitable publicity, particularly in the foreign press, accorded some of these adventures, made him, much against his will, something of a public figure, with the inevitable result that a series of popular books came to be written around him by a personal friend and former colleague of James Bond. If the quality of these books, or their degree of veracity, had been any higher, the author would certainly have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It is a measure of the disdain in which these fictions are held at the Ministry, that action has not yet -- I emphasize the qualification -- been taken against the author and publisher of these high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of a outstanding public servant.
 * We should be grateful that we aren't Sherlock Holmes fans debating which continuation authors are canon. Fanthrillers (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that either 23skidoo or K1Bond007 were acknowledged Bond authorities with works of reference published on Bond? If they haven't then it all falls into the camp of WP:POV really. I'd prefer the authority of the works of Raymond Benson's Bedside Companion (who goes from Fleming to Amis to Gardner) and who notes that "Though it's not an 'official' James Bond novel, it stands as one of the most interesting and enjoyable works pertaining to the cult". Additionally, Paul Simpson's Rough Guide to James Bond lists the book under "Other Bond related books", rather than in the novels section. Jeremy Black's The Politics of James Bond deals with Fleming, Amis, Gardner and Benson, but doesn't even mention Pearson at all. These are all well-known published sources which carry a fair amount of weight on the subject. You are right however to that the fan-website practices should not normally influence Wikipedia policy. Quite right: they should not.
 * As the book is a series of fictional interviews built on the biographical data around Fleming's works, it is not a novel. Yes, it is a work of fiction, but it is not a novel: the two are very different. Do Ian Fleming Publications really see Pearson as a continuation author? This suggests otherwise. You have given a list of publications who put Pearson into the continuation author bracket. I could come up with a much longer list that don't, for the simple reason he isn't! I think the problem is that people have no idea how to classify the book and so it gets lumped in with the novels, because it doesn't fit in anywhere else—rather like the TV adaptation of Casino Royale that some people consider the first film. That's really lazy thinking and not a sufficient basis to include him in the list. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The “previous/next” box says “James Bond writer”, not “James Bond novelist”. I didn't say that 23skidoo or K1Bond007 “were acknowledged Bond authorities with works of reference published on Bond.” However, they are experienced Wikipedia editors with many years experience on these pages. Benson’s reference guide does not explain why Pearson’s work is not an “official” novel. Further, Benson’s reference guide does not include/recognize 007 in New York. Pearson’s book is more than a “series of fictional interviews”. It is a series of stories from Bond’s life. Many of these episodes function as stand-alone short stories. The Pearson-Bond scenes are a frame device and have their own dramatic structure/story arc. Most tellingly, Wikipedia identifies fictional biographies as novels. Novel encompasses many literary forms. William Boyd’s novel Any Human Heart is a fictional diary. The work even has – gasp! – an index. Dracula is an Epistolary novel. By your restrictive standards, neither can be considered novels at all. Invoking the tv adaptation of “Casino Royale” is an apples and oranges comparison. Your argument would only be valid had I attempted to include Andrei Gulyashki (“Avakoum Zahov versus 07”), Cyril Connolly (“Bond Strikes Camp”), Will Self (“License to Hug”) or James Hatfield ("The Killing Zone"). Glidrose co-owns the Pearson book copyright. Glidrose also had editorial control over the manuscript prior to publication. It this issue will result in ongoing conflict, then I recommend removing the previous/next writer box altogether. The wikipedia Bond film pages function quite well without a previous/next film box. Imagine the edit wars if wiki editors had to decide which film follows Octopussy? (grin) Fanthrillers (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right—they are experienced editors with much very good work on these pages. I am slightly less experienced, but have managed to get seven Bond films, all the Fleming books (plus a couple of others) and nine other Bond-related articles up to GA status (obviously with the help of others and working on the very good work of those two and a whole host of others—including you!) I don't say this as an idle boast, but I do want to show my credentials (if you'll excuse the awful Casino Royale opening reference!) Actually Benson does discuss "007 in New York"—my copy has the information on page 19, with the recipe outlined verbatim on pp67-68, but still does not refer to the Pearson work at all. Actually I like your idea about removing the box altogether: dropping the Template:James Bond books at the bottom of all the authors pages would make sense and get round the question of "Why X and not Y?" By your criteria R. D. Mascott should be included before Amis (it holds the Glidrose copyright, it's a novel etc), although I'm not sure either of us would press too hard for its inclusion!
 * (While we're on that point, the infobox for Octopussy and The Living Daylights shows "Followed by: 003½: The Adventures of James Bond Junior", which I'm not sure should be there at all as it's not a Bond book: would you have any objection if I changed it to move from Octopussy to Colonel Sun?)
 * I note that most film articles have replaced the "Preceded by / Followed by fields as unnecessary and I think it would probably be a better way to go. I don't suggest this just as a way of avoiding conflict—life is too short to pick fights on points like this—but I would like us to come to a common ground if possible. If we can't agree, then I'm prepared to leave Pearson in there, even though it's against my better judgement. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the "previous/next author" box. Good riddance, I say. As for your other points: I'm aware that Benson mentions "007 in New York", but he doesn't analyze it as he does the other stories. However, as we're finding common ground let's not get sidetracked. Actually, in retrospect I would have included Mascott and possibly Geoffrey Jenkins. When you say "dropping" the template, I assume you mean including it at the bottom of each author's page, in which case I entirely agree. You can do that if you like. I'm pressed for time now, but I want to discuss the 003 1/2 book with you in more detail in this thread. Fanthrillers (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * re: 003 1/3: the "Preceded/Followed" infobox is another quagmire. I strongly advise removing this too. We can put the Template:James Bond books at the bottom of each book page. Again, as you say, it will help us "get round the question of "Why X and not Y?" Besides, neither of agrees what Bond novel follows Colonel Sun. :) I've checked various Bond book wiki pages and whoever compiled the "Preceded/Followed" infobox included some of the uncollected short stories and all of the novelizations. However the novelization links are no longer truly valid. Instead of taking us to the novelization sub-heading the link takes us to the top of the film page which doesn't even contain the novelization's publication info or tell us what the next book is! Win, Lose or Die gets around this by listing both the Licence to Kill novelization and Brokenclaw. Whoever compiled the "Preceded/Followed" infobox excluded Westbrook's two short stories, her Moneypenny Diaries and the Higson novels. Oddly, Higson did appear in the now expunged previous/next author box. Further, the Bond series isn't strictly chronological. Two stories in the Octopussy collection clearly occur before other previously published books: "007 in New York" gets mentioned in "Quantum of Solace"; "The Property of a Lady" occurred before "You Only Live Twice" and "The Man with the Golden Gun". Between 2002 and 2013 we jump from a Benson novel (never-aging Bond in modern times) to a Benson novelization to Higson (young Bond in the 1930s) to Faulks (almost middle-aged Bond in 1967) back to Higson over to Deaver (30 year old Bond in 2011, completely obliterating the time line which was already on shaky ground) to Boyd (even more middle-aged Bond in 1969). Now throw Westbrook into the mix. Ugh! Who in their right mind would read these particular books in this publication order? How can anybody in their right mind say that "Carte Blanche" follows anything? If Deaver does write a sequel to "Carte Blanche" several years from now he'll no doubt develop that sub-plot about Bond's parents. If so, his sequel will follow "Carte Blanche", not Boyd's forthcoming novel. Which John Gardner title goes first? "Licence to Kill" (published first), or "Win, Lose or Die" (written first). Gardner's GoldenEye occurs a year after the end of "Cold", but was published one year before. As you can see, I feel strongly about eliminating this "Preceded/Followed" info too. What are you thoughts/feelings? Fanthrillers (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with getting rid of it (I've just done it for 003 1/2). The template contains all the info about all the books, and—Fleming novels and Col Sun apart—there is no nothing that fits any continuation of a story until we get to Faulks who manages to link it all back to MWTGG. I'll spin through the books later this evening and start removing them. It's a bit of a shame to see them go from Fleming's works, but I'll be happier to see the consistency across all the books, rather than the current mess! I've just seen your Deaver comment on my page, so I'll drop over to there for that... Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But Faulk's ignores Amis's Colonel Sun. Devil May Care clearly occurs after the events of Colonel Sun. Fanthrillers (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pearson's authorized / authorised
I agree - it is with a Z. I've moved the page accordingly so the title reflects the first edition name. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Gardner
I saw you changed the date that Glidrose approached Gardner from 1980 to 1979. Do you have a source for that year? The only reason I ask is that in a piece Gardner himself wrote he says 1980: "In 1980, while I was living in Ireland I received a challenge out of the blue. Would I be prepared to write a James Bond continuation novel? Glidrose, the literary copyright holders in Ian Fleming approached me..." (See www.john-gardner.com/thepast). It may well be that his memory was at fault on this, but if so then we'll need a pretty good source to counter it. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dalton
Thanks very much for your intervention on Dalton—not least for correcting my erroneous assumption that Dalton.info was the official site! I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked your edit slightly so that both years are shown in the lead and infobox, with the discussion moved into the footnotes. I've not forgotten about the BL visit: work has been a bit hectic after my week off, but I'm hoping to get up there in the next week or so. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Punch etc
I have a date with the British Library on Friday and I've ordered in the edition of Punch you asked about eons ago, so I hope to be able to send this over to you on Friday at some point. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Brian Moore (novelist)
Your comments have encouraged me to add some more to the Brian Moore bibliography - based on your helpful leads and on some research on my own. Still work in progress - but you might want to take a look. Thanks for your help. Headhitter (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the short story additions also. Headhitter (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Allbeury
As near as I can tell, that was an A7 (the article was nearly hopeless, two sentences of early history and one dubious-looking sentence about his fiction writing skills), but there's nothing at all preventing recreation of a biography of Allbeury,, , , .. there's clearly enough sourcing, and no precedent that would stop recreation. Just sayin'. :) --j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll be heading out of town in a couple days, but do let me know if I can help in some way.  Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a tiny stub now.  Enjoy!  --j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Glad to meet a friendly, open-minded admin. Too many senior editors and admins will tag an article for non-notability or questionable notability where the article's subject matter is far outside their area of interest and expertise. BTW, it appears that the previous, now-deleted Allbeury article copied verbatim the "about the author" blurb from one of his books. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Alteration
If Candia can not be disambiguated, perhaps it should be unlinked. I ran into this in normal dab cleanup and no nothing about the article or this link. So if you have any knowledge in this area, your opinions are probably better then mine. Feel free to correct the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bond grosses
Hi, I was wondering if you have completed the conversion to the new adjusted grosses at User:Fanthrillers/sandbox? If you have we may as well copy in the new chart. There are still some issues outstanding about how best to present the data, but those can be sorted out any time, and in the article itself. If the data is correct it would be a good idea to get it transferred in before Skyfall is released, since the Bond articles will be getting quite a lot of hits. Betty Logan (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good plan. I need to sort out the next version, with the separated synopses and split out critical opinion section. It'll take a bit of time as I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, on here and in RL. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry not getting back to you. Yes, I've completed, checked and double-checked the numbers. You may now copy the sandbox table into the article. Or I suppose I'll do it. However, it appears that some of the Rotten Tomatoes figures may have since changed. Those I haven't bothered with on principle since I hate that entire row, as I've said several times. Again, sorry I didn't immediately tell you it was ready. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've copied the new data into the article. I also fixed a reference error that occurred because the non-Eon chart depended on a subsequently-deleted citation. I haven't verified that the references SchroCat inserted into the sandbox article were correct but I trust that they are. I'll defer to you both where to place the main chart references & bibliography. Cheers. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the formatting slightly so the table fits on to 1024 screens, so it may not be necessary to break the table down now. I've also downgraded the non-Eon films to 2005 levels too. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The day of reckoning
Thanks for letting me know. --Niemti (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bond
I've dropped the Fleming article on for nomination on the front page for showing on 23 October. If you feel like commenting, please help yourself at TFA requests. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

JB Character
Hi FT, could I ask a favour, for when you have some spare time? I've been slowly working on the JB film character article in fits and starts and I've now done Connery to Dalton. Could you have a quick spin over it to see that it looks OK and doesn't break any major rules? I'm hoping to finish Brosnan and Craig soon(ish) and them revamp the other troublesome page before having to have another battle on various talk pages... Cheers!


 * Will look at them over the weekend. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your comments and edits on the article. I'm dealing with the easier ones first before moving onto the chunkier bits (or those that need extra research), but feel free to add any further comments (or question some of the updates I've done). Bond's Scottishness. I've not read Charles Helfenstein's books (it's too pricey at £45 on eBay!) so I've not read what he has to say, but what does he base his information on? Is this something direct from Fleming, or is it something that's he's read into the half-truths and memories of others? It's an interesting point about when Fleming intended to introduce the Scottish note, as it comes in during the obit in You Only Live Twice, which Fleming wrote after the release of Dr. No. It could very well be a conincidental chronology, or that Connery was the final nudge that reminded Feling he needed to put the Scottishness in, but I'm not sure there is any definitive word as to when Fleming decided. I'll have another spin through my excellent Lycett later today: he normally manages to come up with the right answers! Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Helfenstein relied on Fleming correspondence. Helfenstein discusses this on a message board where he appears to be an administrator. - [[User:Fanthrillers|Fanthrillers] (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting point (and I hope to get hold of the book at some point). I think it's one that no-one will ever really know the truth behind it. Although the idea may have been in Fleming's head at some point, it was never introduced until after Connery, and there is nothing that I have ever read that comes from Fleming to argue the point one way or the other. I think the balance we have now (to use the sources to highlight the post-Connery claim, while also allowing for Helfenstein's research) is best for the moment - you never know what furutre research could bring up! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your comments. I've cleared them all up (I hope!) with the exception of the final paragraph of Dalton (the Dalton—Schenkman interview section). I'm not sure if that belongs in there, or it should go in the "JB in film" production history article (the next stop on the editing trail!) I'll let you decide on that, but I agree it needs to go into one of the two articles. Let me know if there is anything I've missed, or anything you disagree with. I tweaked the lead section based on your comments, but if you feel that it's still not right then feel free to edit. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking for your thoughts...
I've started a thread at Talk:List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series; I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you could spare the time and have an opinion. It revolves around replacing the current table with this one, which is out of place in a production history article. Any thought you have would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Production History
Hi FT, I've finally finished the production history, although I did feel as if I was going round in circles towards the end of it. When you have a little free time, is there a chance you could have a look over it for me? Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll look it over when I have a chance, which may not be for another week. BTW, I still want to have another go at the JB film character article in your sandbox. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. They may be live by then, depending on the number of issues Betty identifies, but if they are relatively clean then I'll drop them into article space for any further work. They should be OK to go as they are, with any further remedial work being done as an on-going basis. I just hope the idiot "delete-at-all-costs" brigade don't show up mob-handed again! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem waiting a bit longer on the article: Betty is still going through it and I'll need some time to tweak the bits you've highlighted. Cheers for the work so far. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I redirected A Delicate Truth to John le Carré. The reason for this is that the book doesn't currently pass notability guidelines per WP:NBOOK. It hasn't received any in-depth coverage in any independent and reliable sources to show notability. It's likely it'll become notable, but right now it just hasn't gotten enough attention and the book doesn't inherit notability from its author. It can always be un-redirected once it gets a lot of in-depth coverage, but just make sure to pay attention to what type of coverage it is getting. If it's just a bunch of articles re-stating a press release then that doesn't entirely show a depth of coverage. An example of this can be seen with And the Mountains Echoed. It has sources, but they all say the exact same thing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

JB in film & Character
Hi FT, I'm fairly happy that both these articles are close enough to standard that they can be launched fairly soon. I'm off on a business trip to the frozen climes of Norway for a couple of days so I propose to move them to their rightful locations when I return (either Tues or Weds) so I can deal with any of the inevitable issues that arise subsequently. There are still of few of your hidden comments in there which I will leave there and they can be sorted as and when the cites come up (I've had a hunt round and can't find anything, but I'll do another sweep before I launch). Does that sound OK with you? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to busy throughout the weekend and into next week so I'll have little if any time to search for citations in my embedded comments. Sorry. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem at all, which is why I'm going to leave them in there when the page gets transferred across. I think most of the ones that were seriously wrong have now been sorted, with the lesser offenders remaining, which is why I'm happy to move now(ish) and tweak at a later date. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm sure you've probably seen already, but I uploaded the new versions of the two pages. I had some spare time and the internet access in the hotel is better than I thought it would be, so I've gone and lit the blue touch paper... - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Helfenstein
I finally ordered a copy of this - a couple of weeks lead time from Amazon, so hopefully I'll be able to sort out a few of the queries we've got on a number of different articles! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)