Moonraker (novel) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Moonraker (novel) is part of the Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and short stories series, a featured 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 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 5, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 17, 2011 Good article nominee Listed April 17, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted August 12, 2015 Peer review Reviewed September 12, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

James Bond (inactive) 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 Novels Mid‑importance 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archived stale talk:Talk:Moonraker (novel)/archive01

coverage from 4-2004—2008 (fair use of image notices, ho-hum!)

... does this conspiracy nonsense have to do with the subject of the article?

"He also plays the stock market the day before to make a huge profit from the planned disaster--a possible "revelation of the method" from Ian Fleming in 1955 of the stock market short-selling centered around the infamous, Nazi-created Deutsche Bank days before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in northern Virginia." 84.161.98.155 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is garbage. 71.184.178.110 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why a plot correction I made was undone, but I've corrected it again. Relevant text from the novel: It was a simple plan. In the evening, two of my men, one in American uniform and one in British, were to drive up in a captured scout car containing two tons of explosive. There was a car park-no sentries of course-near the mess hall and they were to run the car in as close to the mess hall as possible, time the fuse for the seven o'clock dinner hour, and then get away. All quite easy and I went off that morning on my own business and left the job to my second in command I was dressed in the uniform of your Signal Corps and I set off on a captured British motor-cycle to shoot a dispatch rider from the same unit who made a daily run along a near-by road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.32.110.173 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea cupla - my memory was playing me false: I'd forgotten this was one of Fleming's overly large coincidences! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will not have internet access next week (until Oct 2nd), but I will sort out any issues you may have from that time on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurencebeck, it appears that you are trying to add material that two people have now questioned. Perhaps we should discuss this here, rather than see a continual reversion cycle? I have looked at the Fergus Fleming source, as well as the Chancellor one, and yes, one capitalises the word Metropolis and one does not: that does not appear to be a major discrepancy, although it is mildly annoying for us. What neither source refers to is Fritz Lang or the film Metropolis, so I am unsure how or why you decided that the use of a capital letter leads automatically to this conclusion. Finally, I see that you also introduced American punctuation (using 'metropolis idiom,"' is wrong here), and an inconsistent referencing style – the article appears to use the {{sfn}} system for books. - The Bounder (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presently your article says this,
'Fleming told the producer that his next book was to be an expansion of an idea for a screenplay, set in London and Kent, adding that the location would allow "for some wonderful film settings in the old metropolis idiom".'
Now, isn't that rather meaningless?

What else does it mean if it does not mean the 1927 Fritz Lang film, Metropolis?

The atmospheric sets and designs of the 1927 film certainly found echo in Ken Adam's designs (they were an overwhelming part of the James Bond film signature).

If a couple of people have questioned what I have added to give some context to the meaningless statement,
'Fleming told the producer that his next book was to be an expansion of an idea for a screenplay, set in London and Kent, adding that the location would allow "for some wonderful film settings in the old metropolis idiom"'
then you, sir, you allow them to have what they want !

Wikipedia is immense. I have given some little attention to this article.  -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~>>>>>>>>>>>

In the 1979 film Moonraker Fleming's 1953 words to Korda, "wonderful film settings in the old Metropolis setting" were certainly put to practicality:

Production began on 14 August 1978. The massive sets designed by Ken Adam were the largest ever constructed in France and required more than 222,000 man-hours to construct (roughly 1000 hours by each of the crew on average). They were shot at three of France's largest film studios in Épinay and Boulogne-Billancourt.

The essence of the concept of the film-making of the Bond films lie exactly there in the 1953 letter to Korda. This would have again been put forward to the producers of the 1962 first Bond film Dr.No and to proceed with the entire series, his words again, quite surely persuasive in production discussions, "wonderful film settings in the old Metropolis idiom."

I do trust that you do believe that Fleming's thrust of the broad théâtre of life in his few words of concept would not be allowed to be let lie idle and abandoned in the 1953 letter.  -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurencebeck, first of all, it's not The Bounder's article, any more than it's yours or mine, nor is The Bounder suggesting that. Now, to the main point, you may well be right that the letter is referring to the Fritz Lang film, but neither your opinion nor mine is a substitute for an unambiguous reference in a reliable source, and we don't seem to have that. If you're concerned that the quote is meaningless, we should be discussing removing it entirely, not investing it with meaning that's not unequivocally there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ian Rose . . . . . The Fleming accepted authoritative Andrem Lycett biography gives the upper case M to Metropolis on this page: click > in the old Metropolis idiom < (phrase containing *Metropolis towards end of page)

It certainly is *meaningless without the upper case M. But there to be seen is the *authority of Lycett, his authority in the use of the upper case M.

Fleming, born 28 May 1908, was 18 years and 10 months old when *Metropolis first screened at the Marble Arch Pavilion on March 21, 1927. Here is a whole *blog on it: http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/blog/metropolis/ . . . Certainly an indelible experience for the culturally alert.

The upper case M can be returned (with the authority of Lycett) by he or she among those who would want the best for the page.

Of course it is certain, but "not *unequivocally there," that the reference is to Lang's 1927 Metropolis; and it is satisfying for me, and whoever else enjoys seeing the history within culturally developing situations, to have the detail of information. -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the words "in the old metropolis idiom" would solve the issue, rather than the full quote. I'm not sure what the 1979 film adaptation has to do with Fleming's 1953 letter: that doesn't seem to offer any guidance on whether IF was talking about Metropolis or not? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming's 1953 concept for the filming of his books, his 1953 letter to Korda, proved so successful a formula that it contributed greatly to the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom. It is hardly likely that anyone would want the successful 1953 formula anything but retained in 1979, its contribution being to a nation's healthy economy so considerable.-- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My knowledge of Bond and the films is not great, but as far as I am aware he had nothing to do with the filming, or with providing any "vision" to the producers nine years after he wrote this letter. - The Bounder (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the confusion here (particularly with the tangential threads of the 1979 film and the GDP of the British economy), I will be bold and remove the final five words from the quote. I see that Lycett also makes no reference to the Lang film, so any connection is - in the absence of any other sources - wp:original research. - The Bounder (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• And I will return them with the upper case M (according to Lycett). --Laurencebeck (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? - The Bounder (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• And why, as I commented in my opening comment to this thread, have you decided to introduce an inconsistent referencing style? Ian Rose, Cassianto, do you think my suggestion of removing the confusing words ("in the old metropolis idiom") to be a step forward? If there is confusion about the meaning or capitalisation, perhaps we're better off leaving out something that does not add to understanding. (For the record I made the edit, and Laurencebeck edit warred it back in again). -The Bounder (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I should probably ping SchroCat as the person who seems to have taken this through FAC and who has answered questions on the talk page previously too. - The Bounder (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be great to have his input as the prime contributor to this page but he unfortunately retired several month ago and hasn't edited since. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do and I've deleted it. Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my earlier comment, works for me -- at this stage anyway. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Laurencebeck (talk) on published capitalization of *Metropolis :

The *capitalization of Metropolis is in Lycett, this page > ". .in the old Metropolis idiom." _ Lycett
and in the published letters, this page > ". .in the old Metropolis idiom." _ letters

Wikipedia can use the quote from the Fleming letter, 1953, "for some wonderful film settings in the old Metropolis idiom" with perfect safety as the capitalization being perfectly authoritative.

In the letter Fleming is setting a concept of production design, notably in the idiom of the 1927 Fritz Lang film "Metropolis", for a film that would be made, in the contemporary sense (1953) from his book, yet to be written, "Moonraker".

He is writing to a European film maker, based in England, who would understand immediately what was meant by "the old Metropolis idiom". But that understanding cannot be verified at present to satisfy Wikipedia's rules of publication.

It is almost a vital piece of understanding into how the formula for the Bond films evolved from a very moment of genesis.--Laurencebeck (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that the book Moonraker has never been filmed - the Roger Moore movie used the title and the villain's name and ditched everything else - even the name of the heroine. IMHO it would make an excellent film, but the film-makers seem to disagree. RGCorris (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Laurencebeck (talk) on coincidence of titles in works of Fleming and Lang :
Fleming's You Only Live Twice (publication 1964) could yet be drawing a bow towards Fritz Lang. Certainly not too long a one but there is the 1937 film of Lang's You Only Live Once. While the Lang reference in 1953 was in private correspondence, here there might very well be a public nudge towards the famed filmmaking pioneer.--Laurencebeck (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that Amis brought up the question of how M could afford membership of the club, is it worth noting at such length, if at all? If one drew the comparison, the Wikipedia biography of the real head of MI6 in 1952, Sir Stewart Graham Menzies, begins with the statement “Stewart Graham Menzies was born in England in 1890 into an immensely wealthy family…” Surely therefore it is implicit that M is a member of such a club or clubs not based on whether the salary of the head of MI6, but because he was otherwise a rich man, drawn from the ranks of the establishment, as many of the ruling classes would have been? Jock123 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amis’s point is a valid one, and as he’s a reliable one the information should be included. Parallels between the real and fictional are never likely to stack up, particularly in such an exaggerated series as Bond. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book does say explicitly at one point that "M is not a particularly rich man" if they didn't change that in later editions. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Why did you revert my changes? I changed things that were factually wrong. For example Brand was not captured by Krebs. She picked Drax's pocket unseen while the three of them were alone in a car and Krebs only saw her trying to put the notebook back. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of your changes which were not improvements. Others I left in place.

Nothing you altered was factually incorrect, including Brand’s capture: “Gala’s hand reached to the left under the coat. But another hand struck like a snake. ‘Got you.’ Krebs was leaning half over the back of the driving seat. His hand was crushing hers into the slippery cover of the notebook under the folds of the coat.“ - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "captured" is the best word, she was already stuck in a speeding car with both of them and it makes it sound like Drax didn't help or even didn't know until Krebs brought her to him. I would write instead that she was "caught" or "exposed" by Krebs while returning the notebook.

By the way, she discovered Drax's plans in "the Thomas Wyatt just outside Maidstone", and Krebs strangled and (Drax?) beat her to unconsciousness at "the sharp turning to Mereworth", this is also in Maidstone, not London, so I think this should also be fixed: "Drax takes Brand to London, where she discovers the truth about the Moonraker..."

They also weren't swimming under the cliffs when the landslide was triggered, but suntanning on the beach below an overhang and Bond specifically says this saved their lives, etc. Please recheck the book, I'm pretty sure about my changes. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”Captured” is fine (given that’s what happens to her).

She finds out the full details while tied up in London, so it’s correct as it is, and we don’t need to bloat the plot with superfluous details.

I’m slightly bemused by the ‘swimming’ point, because you didn’t alter it. You are right about it, however, so I’ll tweak it slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the swimming was something I only noticed today. I did a small change to the "captured" sentence. If we're going to go into all the details of picking Drax's pocket, which was just a few sentences compared to nearly a whole page of fighting Krebs at the "turning to Mereworth", a few words more won't hurt ;-) IvicaInsomniac (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve put it back to where it was: bloating out with extraneous details is not what is expected for an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I don't see why you restored the bloated parts I shortened if you insist that this part is unimportant enough. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too bumped on this when I read it: "Drax takes Brand to London, where she discovers the truth about the Moonraker by comparing her own launch trajectory figures with those in a notebook picked from Drax's pocket" is incorrect. She compares the figures in the "Thomas Wyatt just outside Maidstone". So it should be corrected to "Drax takes Brand to London, where she discovers the truth about the Moonraker. by comparing her own launch trajectory figures with those in a notebook picked from Drax's pocket. She does not get to London then compare figures. Nor does the comparison between her figures' and Drax's lead her to the conclusion on "the truth about the Moonraker". She just knows something is wrong. Mark83 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchroCat has taken exception to this edit where I removed the image of Noel Coward therefore I'm happy to have a discussion here. As I said in my edit summary the image is not all relevant. From MOS:IMAGES: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding." That is not the case here. The image is actually a distracting tangent from the topic of this article; if someone is curious about what Noel Coward looks like (unlikely) they can go to that article.

Why just Coward, why not have a gallery of all the people who made comment on the novel (Julian Symons, Maurice Richardson, Hilary Corke, John Metcalf, Anthony Boucher, Richard Lister, Al Manola)? (A rhetorical question).

By the way, I too have been the main contributor getting an article to FA status and it's something to be proud of. However that achievement does not bestow ownership of the article and we should all be open minded about others' opinions. See WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Mark83 (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC) & edited 10:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for finally coming to the talk page, despite your edit warring to get here. Firstly, pop the uncivil accusations somewhere uncomfortable: it's not a good start to any discussion when one party immediately starts throwing round childish insults for openers, so soon after edit warring to get their own way. You purport to be an admin: start behaving like one, possibly after reading WP:FAOWN and learning from it. Secondly, the MOS is a flexible series of guidelines, not something for the unthinking to turn into a fetish to slavishly insist on adherence to. Images have many uses, including, as is the case here, breaking up walls of text to make the reading experience better for readers. To answer your rather silly rhetorical question with the obvious answer: not only do we not have free images of those people, none of them were also friends and neighbours of Fleming. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe accusing you of 'gatekeeping' (WP:OWN) against was a well explained and valid edit of mine was uncivil, but even if it was, you have gone over and above by calling comments "childish", rhetorical questions "silly" and edits 'fetishistic'. But let's do a reset on tone and focus on a constructive discussion. And the rhetorical question was a bad attempt at humour.

• On the MOS: I’d suggest that dismissing the MOS simply because I quoted it isn’t a strong position — an impartial third party would likely see value in applying the relevant guidance. The MOS does underline that images should serve a clear encyclopaedic function, not just break up text visually. Our goal is clarity and relevance, not aesthetics alone. I happen to think the way it breaks up headings actually damages the visual quality of the article.
• On the image in question: Its relevance is questionable. Coward is not central to the article’s subject, and the justification seems to hinge on proximity to the subject (i.e. “friends and neighbours of Fleming”) rather than his own relevance to the article’s content.
• On policy: You cited WP:FAOWN — that doesn’t mean editors can sidestep guidelines or consensus to keep content they prefer. If an image is contested, consensus decides — not who reverts fastest or longest. And since you bring up that as a defence, it is relevant that the relevance of this exact image was questioned at FAC stage.Mark83 (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you've doubled down on the accusation? Staggering. Your accusation continues to be unfounded and uncivil. It's somewhat odd that I have to explain basics to an admin of long-standing status, but read some basics before you throw out such uncivil terms again. I am well aware of what FAOWN says, particularly as I linked it for you, so there really is no need to mansplain it to me.

I am happy to wait for others to chip in on this. As there is a very long-standing WP:EDITCONSENSUS for its inclusion, it certainly requires more than one person's wish to delete it for it to go, so input from others will, I am sure, be forthcoming. WP:STATUS QUO is in effect until such time as a different consensus arises. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job ignoring the invitation for a reset on tone. Mark83 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't double down on the insults and ask for a reset on tone in the same breath. You are the one who has unnecessarily personalised this from the start, so don't be surprised when someone pushes back. If you want to make your future posts about the edits rather than the editor, then I'm all for it, but don't insult my intelligence by doing both at the same time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that my quoting from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR here is suggestive of bad faith, and that was not and is not my intention and I am sorry for that. Further I agree that it was a bad way to start the conversation.Mark83 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the importance of Coward in Fleming's life, and vice versa, not to mention that Coward was invited but declined to play the title role in the film of Dr No I think it is petty and frankly rather dim to wish to censor his image in this article. Ten reviewers contributed to the FAC and none of them objected to the inclusion of the image. One of them even checked its credentials for being there. It should certainly remain in place, in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petty and dim? It's a good faith proposal to improve the article which should not invite those words in response. And just factually, one of the reviewers while ultimately supporting FA promotion, stated "and don't know how this picture really benefits the article to begin with".Mark83 (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I view your persistent edits. Even if I thought you were right I should have thought common sense and good manners would suggest making the suggestion on the article talk page before driving the tanks onto the lawn. Tim riley talk 12:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your view does not excuse you calling anyone petty or dim. Back to the content: I am aware of Coward's close relationship with Fleming and that he was offered the role of Dr. No. But I still believe it to be a tangent, and the latter point is a good rationale for his potential inclusion in one of the Dr. No articles, not here.Mark83 (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment that is your opinion, but it's not currently shared by others. I think there is a good rationale for retaining the image, both because of the connection with Fleming, but also because - as I've mentioned above - it breaks up the wall of text effect. No harm is done to the article by its inclusion, and there is nothing that forbids it, so I'm happy to let it sit there. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark83, for one so quick to lash out you are surprisingly oversensitive: I did not call you either petty or dim: I referred to your comments rather than to you. (We are all, I trust, intelligent and fundamentally decent, but we have all made dim and petty statements here and elsewhere that we have cause to repent, or so it seems to me: perhaps you never have). It strikes me - others may disagree - that there is one editor here who invites a hostile response, and I think we should all resist the temptation. Meanwhile if you can assemble a consensus to delete the image I for one, and I am confident I speak for the main editor of the article, will bow to it. Tim riley talk 12:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said " I think it is petty and frankly rather dim to wish to censor his image in this article". That is not a comment on my comments. That is a comment on me. I have a valid reason for not wanting the image in the article. You disagree which is absolutely fine, but you can disagree without using words like that.Mark83 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think your comments petty and dim, but as to what I think of you, how can I tell, apart as we unhappily are? I am perfectly prepared to believe that you personally are neither, but you are avoiding the point: does anyone agree with you that the image should be deleted? Tim riley talk 15:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are being uncivil, an example of which is "belittling a fellow editor". Your semantics about whether your comments are about my comments or me are irrelevant. I don't even want an apology, I would rather just end this focus on personal comments now, especially since I have apologised to SchroCat above, including for my bad judgement in the way I opened this conversation.

And I am not avoiding any point; current status of the debate is 3:1 against. Mark83 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion of the image. As noted above, Coward had multiple connections with Fleming besides commenting on Moonraker. No other free images have been proposed as more significant to this section, and Coward's image does significantly ground the reception section more concretely with an image of the reviewer with not only a significant opinion of the novel, but also an interesting connection with the author. I would also suggest considering adding an image of Fleming in the "Style" section. As for the sniping above, I would note that after Mark83 *twice* reverted to get their way (that's edit warring), they began their Talk page discussion with an accusation of OWN. Whenever I see a person begin a discussion with an accusation of OWN against a person who opposed their proposed, I know that their arguments are likely to be weak. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologised for the OWN accusation above. Moving on to the arguments, I do have valid arguments which I made in the edit summaries and above. Nevertheless, I am happy to read arguments against and defer to the consensus here which you have constructively contributed to, thank you for that. Mark83 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ssilvers for seeking to defuse the above arguments. That is how WP should operate when a single editor indulges in edit warring, and I'm grateful to you. If anyone wishes to second Mark83's suggestion I hope he/she will do so here. Tim riley talk 16:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that the sniping (as Ssilvers termed it), including my own obviously, will turn people off reading the actual substance of the debate above. Would anyone have an objection to me highlighting content-specific comments for everyone above? Or prefer to highlight their own? Mark83 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I object to it. We've all presented our arguments. If anyone else wants to comment they can, and I think those who have already commented should stop posting. See WP:BLUDGEON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ssilvers. Cherry picking is not a proper course. Let us see if other editors wish to consider the matter and express a view. Tim riley talk 21:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've absolutely no wish to re-ignite the above discussion, where a clear consensus has already been reached, but I've just added in a mention of White Cliffs, St Margaret's Bay, the house Fleming rented on the Kent coast. It's instructive to note that he purchased the unexpired portion of the lease from his close friend, Noël Coward, and they engaged in a lengthy, faux-outraged, discussion on various associated costs (see Coward Letters 2007). Another point of close connection between the two, and one with particular relevance to the Moonraker novel. KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]