Talk:Thunderball (novel): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

{{Article history|action1=FAC

~~{{FailedGA|30 Aug 2007}}~~

~~{{talkheader}}~~

~~{{ArticleHistory~~

~~|action1=FAC~~

|action1date=16:54, 8 May 2005

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thunderball/archive1

Line 27 ⟶ 24:

|action4oldid=151007373

|action5=GAC

~~|maindate=October 3, 2005~~

|action5date=2007-09-15

~~|currentstatus=FFA~~

|action5result=failed

}}

~~{{NovelsWikiProject|class=B|importance=Mid}}~~

~~{{WikiProject James Bond|class=B|importance=high}}~~

|action6=GAC

~~==Lotto Thunderball==~~

|action6date=30 August 2007

~~Shouldn't There be a page for the Lotto Thunderball as well? - [[User:JeffyJeffyMan2004|?]]~~

|action6result=failed

*If you feel that there should be one, and if you feel that this doesn't violate any WP-standards, why don't you create an article for previous mentioned lotto? :p [[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''[[User:SoothingR|Soothing]][[User talk:SoothingR|''R'']]''' 07:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

|action6oldid=154628344

~~==S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in the novel==~~

~~I'm conflicted on this line~~

:''The novel features the first and last appearance in the Bond books of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., and the first of Bond's greatest enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, although 007 does not meet the man in this book;''

This is slightly true, but at the same time false. In ''On Her Majesty's Secret Service'', it seemed to me that Bond felt Blofeld was attempting to recreate SPECTRE. He even stated that many of the workings going on at Piz Gloria were SPECTRE-like, however, we technically never see SPECTRE like we did in Thunderball, beyond Irma Bunt. Perhaps this should be restated? [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 03:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

::I think it needs to be rephrased. Technically it is the only FLEMING Bond in which SPECTRE as a full entity is depicted. By OHMSS and YOLT it is stated that SPECTRE as an organization had disbanded, though Blofeld is trying to recreate it. Gardner's books For Special Services and one other (I forget which - Role of Honor, I think) explicitly feature a new SPECTRE, so based on that alone the original statement is incorrect. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 14:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

|action7=GAR

~~==Blofeld's cat==~~

|action7date=October 1, 2007

|action7link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 29#Thunderball (novel)

|action7result=failed

|action7oldid=161650703

|action8=GAN

~~I've deleted the claim that McClory owns the rights to the use of Blofeld's cat as it seems unlikely for the following reasons:~~

|action8date=16:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

|action8link=Talk:Thunderball (novel)/GA1

|action8result=listed

|action8oldid=464226103

|action9=GTC

*Blofeld doesn't have a cat in the books - it was introduced in the film of ''From Russia With Love''.

|action9date=17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

*The cat is present in the sequence at the start of ''For Your Eyes Only'' when an unnamed blad villain is killed off as EON's two fingers up to McClory. I doubt they would have been able to use the cat if it was in McClory's copyright as it would make the character very clearly Blofeld ''as described in the original drafts and novel''.

|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and stories/archive1

|action9result=promoted

|ftname=Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and stories

|maindate=October 3, 2005

~~[[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 03:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)~~

|currentstatus=FFA/GA

|topic=literature

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(21d)

|archive = Talk:Thunderball (novel)/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== Removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status ==

: So long as there isn't some (official) source that explicitly says McClory won the rights to the cat, I have no objection to the change. It could be argued that if McClory did have the rights to the cat he might have taken the [[Austin Powers]] people to task since their Blofeld parody, Dr. Evil, initially had a similar cat, too. Personally, I've always been curious how come McClory never caused problems for the productions of You Only Live Twice, OHMSS and Diamonds which featured Blofeld yet he supposedly raised Cain when Spy Who Loved Me planned to use the character... [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 04:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to state on the record that the removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status would not have occurred if the Wikipedia community had not insisted upon the article being split up. Thanks guys. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:''Variety'' made the claim about the Cat [http://www.ianfleming.org/007news/articles/bondvsony.shtml]. They claim it was part of the 1963 settlement, which is possible. From Russia With Love (movie) did have a cat, but the screenplay to Thunderball was technically written first by Maibaum who later wrote From Russia With Love. I don't know what Maibaum used as source material - I was under the impression the novel only for the first draft, but if Blofeld had a cat and it was in one of those 9 (I've seen the number as high as 10) outlines or screen treatments then it is indeed owned by McClory. The part about the cat should be referenced, but considering Variety actually reported this it should be listed. There are far more odd things that McClory claims ownership of including the Sicilian mob and use of the Bahamas in a storyline etc. It's really never been clear what McClory has and doesn't have when concerning the film rights.

:As for why McClory didn't do anything about Blofeld for YOLT, OHMSS and DAF, I've never understood for sure. I don't think he could have done anything about YOLT and OHMSS to be honest. Blofeld was in those novels, and the film rights to those novels are owned by Danjaq and UA. Admittingly, I'm not to sure how film rights work for a case such as this. Casino Royale (the spoof) was able to use "James Bond" because they owned the rights to that book, so is this not feasible? Another thought is that the use of Blofeld may have been included in the 10 year agreement between McClory and EON - which concluded in 1975. It was about this time that McClory began work on his own James Bond stuff - or perhaps at this point he finally felt that he needed to protect his IP since he was attempting start his own series. I'll attempt to look into this last part more, perhaps consider contacting John Cork if I can. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 05:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

== Failed "good article" nomination ==

::I was always under the impression that EON considered SPECTRE et al to be completely under their ownership until the mid 1970s when McClory first brought suit. If EON did indeed have the film rights to the novel of Thunderball for ten years then presumably all elements in it would have come under their control at the time of the earlier films and so no-one needed to notice the difference. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 12:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

~~:::I've seen this a number of times. This is most likely true. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 20:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)~~

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 13, 2007, compares against the [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|six good article criteria]]:

:'''1. Well written?:''' Although this is mostly well-written, this could do with being copy-edited or gone over a little bit more thoroughly. The last paragraph is poorly written and stubbish.

~~==Number 1 vs. Number 2==~~

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are treating the writeup as the novel, not the movie and that is fine, but maybe there should be a reference to Largo being Number 2 in the movie at some point in the article to clear this up. 20:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' The accuracy of this article has no apparent problems.

:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' This article is about the novel, yet there is a large section about the film.

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' The last paragraph only lists two positive reviews. I'm sure for such a high-profile book there are more reviews than just these positives and more than just enough for two sentences.

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

:'''5. Article stability?''' The stability of the article is not a problem.

:'''6. Images?:''' You have used three book covers under the fair use rationale; however, they are not there for any real purpose. The second is for illustration in the plot summary. The last is in a section about a contraversial text on the front cover without displaying that text.

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

{{ #if: {{{closing comments|}}}|{{{closing comments}}} }}

~~:There already is in the plot summary of the film:~~

When these issues are addressed, the article can be [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|resubmitted]] for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a [[WP:GA/R|GA review]]. Thank you for your work so far.

::''Once in control of the plane, the henchman lands it in the middle of the ocean near the Bahamas where [[Emilio Largo]] ('''number two in S.P.E.C.T.R.E.''') and his men hide the plane from any sort of overhead reconnaissance looking for it. Additionally, the man posing as the NATO observer is killed by Largo's men after asking for more money prior to the hijacking.''

— [[User:Hydrostatics|Hydrostatics]] 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

== GA fail ==

~~:[[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 23:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)~~

~~::I~~Most ~~just~~of ~~can't~~the ~~turn~~Controversy ~~two~~section =is ~~2...~~uncited, and Myneeds ~~bad~~restructuring. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 2317:5801, 2130 August ~~2005~~2007 (UTC)

:These same problems still exist. This is a novel - think of including sections such as: "Themes", "Writing style", "Reception", etc. You might look at the some of the novels that have become FAs for guidance such as ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', and ''[[The Well of Loneliness]]''. Also, there is quite a bit of excellent literary criticism on Fleming and film criticism on the Bond films. You need to do some more research - that will provide you with the sources for the article and help you flesh out the discussion of the novel. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] | [[User talk:Awadewit|talk]] 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

~~==Lack of clarity==~~

~~To quote: "Additionally, to date, Thunderball is the only James Bond film to rank #1 on the chart." Which chart is that? [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 01:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)~~

~~:By Gross. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 03:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)~~

== ~~Did~~GA/R ~~the rebreather exist?~~result ==

Since the review lasted quite awhile, I figured I might as well mention it here, the articles status was unchanged. Jayron seems to of offered some helpful suggestions though, at [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 29]]. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

~~From the '''gadgets''' section:~~

~~<blockquote>~~

Lastly, Bond was given a "rebreather", which was a small scuba device that can be carried unnoticed and, when used, provides a few minutes of air in underwater emergencies. After the film's release there was some confusion as to whether a "rebreather" of this size actually existed and worked, since most of Bond's gadgets (at the time), while possibly implausible, were somewhat based on real gadgets. The rebreather would appear again in a couple future Bond films, most notably Die Another Day and would also possibly be the inspiration for other similar devices found in other movies such as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. </blockquote>

== Rights ==

The article basically says "people asked such and such question," but doesn't actually ANSWER the question referenced! I'm still curious, does such a device exist? Then or now? My curiosity has been piqued, but i have no answer. Does somebody know? Please assist. – [[User:Fudoreaper|Fudoreaper]] 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

:It did not exist in 1965, I can answer that. Whether it exists now, I don't know. There was a special on the History Channel about James Bond gadgets (I believe it was Modern Marvels) and they featured some background information on the device and had an interview with the designer (Ken Adam, I believe) and said it never existed and that he had to explain this to a number of business' and militaries (specifically the Royal Navy and I think the U.S. military). I'm sure this is covered on the Thunderball DVD too. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 18:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

::What ~~Thanks,~~happened ~~K1Bond007. I see that~~to the ~~article~~film ~~has~~rights ~~now~~when ~~been~~McClory ~~updated~~died? ~~with~~ ~~that info. Cheers. –~~[[User:Emperor001|Emperor001]] ([[User talk:~~Fudoreaper~~Emperor001|~~Fudoreaper~~talk]]) 2016:5713, 426 ~~October~~August ~~2005~~2008 (UTC)

~~== McClory's role ==~~

== Edition War September 30, 2004 ==

The narrative says McClory took on executive producer role, and that Broccoli and Saltzman weren't credited as producers. IMDB has McClory as producer, and Broccoli and Saltzman as uncredited producers. I think we should clarify. -- [[User:Beardo|Beardo]] 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

~~:I believe the line you were referring to was redundant (i.e., second mention). I cleaned it up a bit. Should be better. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)~~

User @[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] today launched himself with myself on a edition war, following corrections an new information added by myself earlier today. SchroCat removed them for motive "ALL the new additions are based on an unreliable source. Sources cannot be from personal or fan-driven websites".

~~==Splitting the article==~~

*I oppose splitting the article as it would require removing it from FA status. I also do not want to see the other Bond novel articles split, either. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The source he talked about is, I guess, an e-book called "Scripting 007: Behind the writing of the James Bond movies" written by an author called Clement Feutry and published here: https://www.commander007.net/2024/scripting-007-free-book/

*I don't know if I support splitting all the Bond novels from films (I lean towards 'no'), but for this one specifically, I agree with 23skidoo. It's a featured article. Splitting would void that and it really hasn't changed all that much since becoming one and it's not like the plot of the film is really all that different from the novel. This goes for just about all of them. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SchroCat deemed it "Unreliable" while:

**That being all very well, Bond articles seem to be a law unto themselves. Films and Books are seperate media, so they warrant seperate pages. For instance: [[Revenge of the Sith]]. Take a look at that, and you'll no what I mean. And this being a FA... well, I think it's treading on thin ice. For starters, it's refs are lacking, but that's another thing. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]]) 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

- There is inside 331 explicits precises sources/references, spread/listed on 7 pages (pages 303 to 309).

*As a champion of each work of art getting its own article, I don't see why the Bond articles generally should be treated differently from other film & book combo articles (which are in the process of being evaluated for splitting). Even if the film differs very little from the novel, it's still a separate entity. (Plus, there are those who are interested in only the books or only the films, although that's a minor issue.) Last but not least, why would separating the film and book elements of this article "void" its FA status? Just curious. &hearts; [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]]&hearts; 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

**It would certainly have to have major overhauls done to justify being a featured article. I'm not totally against the idea, it's just not a simple copy and pasting job that can be done all at once. I am considering it. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 03:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

- That theses sources included actual correspondances, actual court papers, actual movie script/treatment, as well as references ouvrages (some even cited as sources in this same Wikipedia page).

*Split and expanded. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Split''', that's the standard and for good reason. Fear of losing FA status isn't a valid reason, if this entry is good enough to be featured it would still be good when the film part is split. --[[User:TheTruthiness|TheTruthiness]] 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

**It's already been split. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

***And, to be honest, it's looking better than ever. Good job K1Bond 007. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]]) 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

****Ok, I was pointed to this by another user when I commented about splitting another Bond novel/movie article. Is someone not splitting the other ones as well? --[[User:TheTruthiness|TheTruthiness]] 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

*****It'll happen, eventually. I've been busy. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 00:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

******Afraid that's not good enough, if you don't have it completed in 30 minutes...um...it's free? --[[User:TheTruthiness|TheTruthiness]] 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

*******:) 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, our previous version of the Wikipedia page before my editions were base on ouvrages like Raymond Benson ''The bedside compagnion'', which basically is:

~~==Bond Battle Royale section==~~

Should not the majority if not all of the "Bond Battle Royale" section belong in the film article / articles. :: [[User:Kevinalewis|Kevinalewis]] : [[User talk:Kevinalewis|(Talk Page)]]/[[User:Kevinalewis/Desk|(Desk)]] 08:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:All of it has to do with the film rights to this book and the screenplays that were written before it as told in the preceding section. Why not keep it together? [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

- Based on interview mades by Benson of the different protagonist of Thunderball evoking 20 years old souvenir (which may be or not acurate due to time factor and that people can lie).

- Isn't based on any document at all (no correspondance of the time, no court paper, no script).

~~==Lit reviews==~~

Below is a piece cut&pasted from the article. While this would be very valuable to the article it should have a citation (for the quotes in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]). My google search could not confirm these, so if anyone can add to the literature reviews (either citing these or adding new reviews) please do so and place it back in the article. [[User:Maintain|Maintain]] 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

- Which is (as all Bond book, or any book, on any subject) "fan-driven". (But I will pass on that since being fan driven doesn't automaticaly mean innacurate, and that all respected author were a one point basically nobody, just simples fans, before they started their first publications).

<blockquote>Not all reviews were praise, however. The political magazine ''Time and Tide'' wrote, ''"The fact that he has made such a dull book out of such a good idea leaves me no doubt that Bond must go."'' Even Fleming himself referred to ''Thunderball'' as one of his lesser books once warning his publishers that he had "run out of puff and zest," and later stating that his last five novels (beginning with ''Thunderball'') were not as good as his first seven.</blockquote>

By reverting all modification made by me, Shrocat restored wrong informations contained in the original page, such as this sentence: "formed the partnership Xanadu Productions, named after Bryce's Bahamian home, but which was never actually formed into a company". This is untrue, and easly can be proven:

~~==Removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status==~~

- The sentence in itself: they "formed the partnership Xanadu Productions" but was "never actually formed into a company": contradiction.

~~==Failed "good article" nomination==~~

~~This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 13, 2007, compares against the [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|six good article criteria]]:~~

- If Xanadu Productions was never formed, how to explains the Wikipedia page of [[The Boy and the Bridge]], which was produced by this compagny?

~~:'''1. Well written?:''' Although this is mostly well-written, this could do with being copy-edited or gone over a little bit more thoroughly. The last paragraph is poorly written and stubbish.~~

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

~~:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' The accuracy of this article has no apparent problems.~~

~~:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' This article is about the novel, yet there is a large section about the film.~~

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

~~:'''5. Article stability?''' The stability of the article is not a problem.~~

**{{done}} [[User:Vikrant Phadkay|Vikrant Phadkay]] 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

- How to explain the name "Xanadu Productions" in the film title sequence (ironicaly reproduced in the Scripting 007 book, page 163), or in the film stills for exemple: https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/385121717046

~~{{ #if: {{{closing comments|}}}|{{{closing comments}}} }}~~

The true is that Xanadu Productions exist and was formed. The compagny that was never formed is Xanadu-Bahamas Limited: a different partenership/society (altrough having a similar name). It was a compagny destined to create the film studio (film studio mentionned in my modification which was reverted). This detail is clearly explained in Scripting 007 book at page 166, or even in Robert Sellers book (page 21, first edition).

~~— [[User:Hydrostatics|Hydrostatics]] 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)~~

So as this exemple show: things was corrected by me, SchroCat deemed my modifications as "unreliable", "ALL" (actually written in caps) of it, reverted it to the old erroned text (which is the one that is actually unreliable since untrue)... [[User:Moneyofpropre|Moneyofpropre]] ([[User talk:Moneyofpropre|talk]]) 09:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

~~==GA fail==~~

:As I put in the edit summary, you need to read [[WP:UNRELIABLE]] to understand about unreliable sources. Fansites like commander007.net are a no-no. And that's before we get to the mangled English that made some parts of the changes unreadable. Even if it was rewritten, the information from commander007.net ''still'' can't be used, because it's not reliable.{{pb}}The article is scheduled to be rewritten in the next few months anyway to bring it up to the FA level that most of the other Bond novels are at. Any minor inaccuracies will be dealt with at that point but—and this is the key point—it will be done only using reliable sources. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

~~Most of the Controversy section is uncited, and needs restructuring. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)~~

::First, the content of this page is in part based on "fansites", see reference n°39 or 42. Why some would be deemed okay, while other abritrary don't? But lets say that all thses gonna be removed in the next rewrites, isn't it?

::Second, you still don't answer what in what a book that sources precises tracables documents is less realiable than an other than sources from interview only?

::Third: shouldn't the debate "is the informations are true or accurate at all, and can we prove it" rather than is the publisher is an fan of James Bond?

::Five: Raymond Benson, Andrew Lycett, Robert Sellers and all the author listed in the reference section aren't fan of Bond too? Should we consider them unreliable and ban their info because they are fan of Bond as well as author?

::Six: you have right about the English. But it could maybe be corrected rather than inhalated?

::Seven: good you intent to deal with inaccuracies. But how one can do that by only accepting infos that are good only in appearance (because published by a big name of the edition rather than a self-edited). As we see by my previous exemples (and I can give others), having a good "packaging" doesn't mean you are more accurate than someone smaller (who, it is the point, have prime sources support his statements). I happen to see more inacucracies in big news site articles about Bond than in Bond's fans website (written by people who know the subject).

::Beside I don't want to disrespect Benson, he is just an exemple took, his book his fantastic, not his fault if he didn't have access to the same prime material some authors had, he did the best he could with what he had. Still their is danger to not question what is wrote inside because he have more credits behind than another guy or another. [[User:Moneyofpropre|Moneyofpropre]] ([[User talk:Moneyofpropre|talk]]) 11:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I am sorry, but with the best will in the world I cannot understand much of this. For the bits that are understandable, no, the references from fan sites should not be there and they will certainly be removed as part of the rewrite. No fan sites will be part of the rewrite, and that includes commanderbond.net. We do not allow unreliable sources in articles - and commanderbond.net is unreliable. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

::::As [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] states, I inform you, @[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]], that a mediation for this conflict has been started on [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Thunderball|Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Thunderball]]. You are invited to participate, in order to settle the matter. [[User:Moneyofpropre|Moneyofpropre]] ([[User talk:Moneyofpropre|talk]]) 07:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::Moneyofpropre, I'm replying here as I try to avoid noticeboards where I can.

:::::The site and the e-book are self published. This means there is no editorial oversight to either. They are a fan site, and as such are not suitable for referencing, just as Wikipedia is not generally acceptable for referencing within Wikipedia.

:::::We need references that have editorial oversight. This isn't anything malicious, it's a case of trying to minimise genuine mistakes by fan sights.

:::::I hope this helps? [[User:Knitsey|Knitsey]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|talk]]) 10:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"Edition War September 30, 2004" So you two have been discussing this for 20 years? Well then, Happy 20th Anniversary![[User:SonOfThornhill|SonOfThornhill]] ([[User talk:SonOfThornhill|talk]]) 13:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:🤣 [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)