Talk:The Living Daylights

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Living Daylights article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The Living Daylights has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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.

The Living Daylights is part of the James Bond films 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
June 24, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
April 12, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
January 23, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
June 30, 2016	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
July 6, 2017	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 30, 2022	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
September 27, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Good article

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories 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.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	The Living Daylights is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

November 2005 – July 2007

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Language is clear and easy to understand, GAN would pass here. Please change the Cast section from a bulletted list to some kind of box, see The Terminator for a good example.

Not required at all, especially if character descriptions exist. Vikrant Phadkay 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate?: The entire Plot section, though interesting, is lacking a single source. Please address this by finding WP:RS sources and cite w/ WP:CIT, and cut out anything else in that section that is unsourced. Filming section appears short on sources as well.

Filming will be managed, but never has there been any need of sources for anything that can be seen in the film itself. Keep this in mind the next time you review a film. Vikrant Phadkay 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: Most of the article is complete, however the Reception section is quite short compared to the rest. Can you find more sources to expand this, even just one or two?

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in neutral wording, would pass GAN here.

5. Article stability? Looking back several months I see some minor anon editing, but the talk page (that I just archived to have a permanent link location in the article history box for the previous GAN fail) looks befeft of editing conflicts. Would pass GAN here too.

6. Images?: Passes here, 1 WikiCommons image and 4 other detailed fair use rationale images.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. —

Essentially, if you can provide sourcing to WP:RS sources for the Plot, format the Cast section as I ask above, and perhaps expand the Reception section with one or two more sources, this should pass as a GA. Message me on my talk page if/when you have done so. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Per a question from Vikrant Phadkay (talk · contribs), I have asked the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to stop by here and comment on my points raised above in my GA review of this article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Sourcing is not necessary in plot sections, unless there are no copies of the film itself to view. Films act as their own primary source when it comes to this type of information, as you can easily view the film and say "this didn't happen". So long as there is not any original research in the plot section, like qualifying a character or something, then it's fine. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict, thanks, Bigs) This is an issue that's come up a few times before, and basically, the plot summary is a recitation of the primary source (film, TV show, etc). That's the implicit sourcing. Some may decry it as original research, but we already summarize content from secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. The way we present it is "original", but there's no personal argument that's being put forth. The most important part of writing plot summaries is to ensure their neutral tone. To best address this, editors should independently look at it. Assumptive items like trying to read a character's emotions should be avoided -- basically, just keep to a descriptive outline of the plot. Interpretations can be placed in ensuing sections that cover real-world context, as the plot summaries complement such sections. Hope this helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - There's not much to be said that Bignole and Erik haven't mentioned. (It probably bears clarifying the point under our style guidelines, however...) Girolamo Savonarola 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

Thank you all for coming so fast when I asked for another opinion, and per the other GA requirements above I will now pass this article as a GA. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sean Bean never auditioned for Bond

"Q. How much fun is it to play a Bond villain? Sean Bean: I love it. It's more fun to play the bad guy. 006 was such an interesting character and the film really explored his friendship with Bond and how it all went wrong, so it was a very personal journey for both characters. And to quell the rumors, I never auditioned for the role of Bond."

http://www.compleatseanbean.com/mainfeatures-136.html

What's the source for the claim that any of the others did? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Sean Bean from the casting section. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove (plot) header?

Is the current revision of the plot section sufficiently concise to remove the (plot) header? Nizamarain 14:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Based on the absence of comment I'm going to remove the plot header. Nizamarain 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Again, I'm late, but I agree; it explains a complex plot with as little faff as possible. Compare with The Langoliers (not even the book; the TV miniseries!), which does a very good job of bulking out a simple plot with reams upon reams of drivel. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death to Spies

So, is it smiert shpionam or smert spionam (from this article) or smert shpionam (from this little stub)? The impression I get from SMERSH is that they're all acceptable versions of the original Russian, but which is the standard? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Light

Other actors considered for the role of James Bond included; Mel Gibson, Mark Greenstreet, Lambert Wilson, Antony Hamilton, Christopher Lambert, Findlay Light, and Andrew Clarke. I was under the impression Findlay Light was an Australian model who nearly had the role in Dr. No. I've never been able to find anything about him other than a comment by one of the producers that he looked like a young Gregory Peck.Foofbun (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is noteworthy but at the time the film came out the only way to get from Gib to Tangier was the ferry whihtook longer than the running time of the film. Even with the flight it would be difficult to make it from the opening to closing location in under 90 minutes.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Living Daylights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rest of cast

Not credited in opening title cards

Kell Tyler as Linda
Catherine Rabett and Dulice Liecier as Liz and Ava: two CIA agents assisting Felix Leiter.
Nadim Sawalha as Chief of Security, Tangier
Alan Tablot as Koskov's KGB Minder
Carl Rigg as Imposter
Tony Cyrus as Chief of Snow Leopard Brotherhood
Atik Mohamed as Achmed
Michael Moor and Sumar Khan as Kamran's Men
Ken Sharrock as Jailer
Peter Porteous as Gasworks Supervisor
Antony Garrick as Male Secretary Blayden
Frederick Warder as 004
Glyn Baker as 002
Derek Hoxby as Sergeant Stagg
Bill Weston as Butler, Blayden
Richard Cubison as Trade Centre Toastmaster
Heinz Winter as Concierge, Vienne Hotel
Leslie French as Lavatory Assistant

Prose?

The end of this article's prose shows this: "The critical consensus on Rotten Tomatoes calls it 'exciting and colorful but occasionally humorless'". Should this be changed to "The film received generally positive reviews, which praised the more serious tone, but received criticism for its lack of humour", or is it already good enough? Blue Jay (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ally?

Why is "ally" used so much when "colleague" would be more appropriate in many cases?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a standard piece of jargon among Bond fanboys. Paulturtle (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hi, I think this should be changed to generally positive, considering that it is generally ranked highly in the james bond rankings and in addition recieving better reviews than it had before, going as far as saying it is better than licence to kill, which also recieved praise and is slightly higher than the living daylights. 118.210.43.64 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Metacritic rating indicates "mixed or average reviews". Do you have sources for your claims? DonIago (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kara

In the Czech language, all female names end with "-ova". Therefore, a name like "Milovy" cannot exist. Apparently British chauvinism and jingoism goes so far that no one cared to check the character list for such an obvious fact. --Reibeisen (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dikko affair

Pushkin's instruction to send Koskov back to Moscow "in the diplomatic bag" is presumably a nod to the then recent Dikko affair. We'd need a source, I suppose. Paulturtle (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]