Talk:The Flashman Papers

Plural follow-up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"The Flashman Papers is a series of novels and short stories written by George MacDonald Fraser, the first of which was published in 1969." -- Why am I getting the urge to swap the singular pronoun to a plural verb: "The Flashman Papers are a series of novels and short stories written by George MacDonald Fraser, the first of which was published in 1969." --Cassianto^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I tied myself up in knots over this one! I originally had it in the plural when I wrote it, but was advised to move to the singular form in either FLC or PR and followed the advice. It depends on my mood whether I read either version to sound right or wrong! - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there are clearly two schools of thought on this one. No problem, I suppose either are/is ok but "are" does flow better for me. Stick with "is" as a PR or FLC certainly overrides me. I'm nearly always wrong anyway! ;) --Cassianto^Talk 10:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(Me too, but my grasp of English is so poor sometimes that I wonder how people understand me!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No sorry, I didn't understand that ;-) -- Cassianto^Talk 12:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a British English vs American English thing? I think "are" is correct in British English anyway, and as this is a British series of books, we should follow this. Consistency also, as "are" was used further down the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I concede that "is" is probably correct if you're talking about the name of the series, but the fact that the series is called "papers" makes it seem wrong. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tables

I think it may be useful to combine the two tables into one, showing all the information in one place. I'm not convinced that the publisher or number of pages add much, so these columns could be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The timelines of the stories overlap, which is why there are two tables: one for the real world publication information, keeping each book as a separate entity, and one table showing the fictional chronology. Merging is putting it into 'in universe' territory too much. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really - the different sections of the books could be split by a rowspan allowing sorting by year for each section. However, if there are to be two tables, and you're worried about "in-universe" for the publication history, it would make a lot more sense for the plot section should be moved to the second table, leaving the first table to be solely about the physical publication of the books. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

During the various recent reviews, it was agreed the current format is fine. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss the content of my suggestions and their merit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion, rowspans aren't particularly accessible, compliance with which, as you know, is part of the criteria for a featured list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we can split the plot summaries also to avoid the rowspan. Surely you can see that they are more suited to the "fictional chronology" table then the "publication sequence" table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't see that I'm afraid. Nor could all the reviewers at the PR nor all the reviewers at the FLC. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please could you explain your reasoning? Just because it wasn't mentioned before is not reason enough. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the FLRC you've opened please so we can all discuss it. (Oh, and I agree with SchroCat's reasoning in the initial response). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Repetition

A lot of the "Context" section repeats the lede. This needs to be addressed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what a lead is supposed to do. It's supposed to summerise the entire article, which it does perfectly. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really - there is a lot of duplication - maybe the lede is too long for a summary - I think it may even contain more information than the context section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead supports the article, not other way round: there is always some duplication - it's always by design. Btw, a series is a singular, not a plural - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a summary of the entire article, not just of the context section. If you look further it should summarise the following sections. Can you give me an example? --Cassianto^Talk 09:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly - so the lede should not have more information than the article. Yes, some duplication, but not as much as this. Maybe the second paragraph of the lede should be incorporated into the "context"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as did the relatively recent PR, FAC and additional scrutiny when it went on the front page. And instead of dropping 3RR reminders into edit summaries, perhaps when your bold edits are reverted, you could come to discuss on the talk page, rather than instantly go into warring revert mode? - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, every edit I tried to make was instantly reverted (even the italicisation of the title!!!). What am I supposed think other than WP:OWN. I think the real issue is the lede tries to do too much, and rather than summarise it just repeats too many details. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OWN is such an easy policy to throw about isn't it. I will take a look at the lede and give it a copy edit if it needs it, however, this was not picked up on in the FLC by reviewers so was not a problem then. I am confident that this would have been mentioned. It is not worth plastering ugly tags all over the shop. SchroCat and I are quite capable in making any discussed changes rather than having prompts glued onto it. --Cassianto^Talk 10:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not one I throw about lightly, believe me. My first issue was with the table(s), which per WP:BRD, I accepted could be discussed to the talk page, but anything else I tried to address was instantly reverted. Reverting the italicisation of the title was a step too far. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert that, and I'm not too concerned with it; I don't really have a problem with your edit of the italicisation of the title. The copy edit of the lede can be (and should be) discussed on the talk page. The tag you added deserves no discussion and was reverted as it is unnecessary due to that pending discussion. --Cassianto^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No - you didn't, but SchroCat did. I don't think I accused you of WP:OWN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat does not assume ownership of the article. He is the main contributor and took it to FLC, so he is rightly going to challenge any changes if he disagrees them. --Cassianto^Talk 10:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's really not worth getting into all this, but as the main contributor, challenging any edit could be seen as ownership. Reverting a correction (such as the proper italicisation of a title of a work) could easily make someone assume this, hence my warning of WP:OWN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect one issue is that this has been through an extensive review process at FLC and is due to be featured on the main page in three days time. As such your sudden reorganisation of the article and tagging has an unfortunate timing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Italic title

"as the main contributor, challenging any edit could be seen as ownership." I'm sorry, but that's just too ridiculous to even try and say in all seriousness. BTW, could you point me to the part of the MOS which suggests book series titles are italicised? - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For "any", I meant an indiscriminatory any rather than a general "any". Try "every". See WP:ITALIC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I did "See WP:ITALIC": no mention of a series made itself plain to me. Just wondering if it's written somewhere, or has it just fallen into common practice. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A title of a series of books would have the same rules as a book itself. In the same way as a series of films, a television series, or any series of works would. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

? Really? Individual radio and TV episodes appear in inverted commas, with the series being italicized, so they do not match the overall scheme (to avoid all confusion) - "Television and radio series and serials (but individual episodes of these should appear in quotes)". Italicising both books titles and series titles causes nothing but confusion: is The Flashman Papers a book (as suggested by the formatting) or is it a series? - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Nothing but confusion"? Ha! Hardly. See the examples at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Which you've just edited and modified? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Because I spotted an error when I went looking for guidelines! The entry in question was a descriptive title, and not italicised in the article. All other examples were. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an incredible coincidence! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, have a look at all the articles (not just the titles) given in that example, and the consistency of the italicisation. All but the descriptive title were italicised. I merely mirrored the standard formatting for series titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, an incredible coincidence! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you implying? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not implying anything, simply stating what an incredible coincidence that you found an error like that. Good job too! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge content from Harry Paget Flashman

I think some sections, such as Historical characters referenced in the Flashman novels, along with the Adaptations and Homages sections would be better placed on this article, as an overview of the series as a whole, than on the fictional biography page. Thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily a good idea. This is about the book series as written by Fraser, rather than any of the fan cruft and puffery that surrounds it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then should it be eschewed from that page also? Here is certainly a more suitable repository for that information than there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely there's no objection to the "Adaptations" section being moved across? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

See List of James Bond novels and short stories. This article follows the outline of that, and neither of them contain adaptations, which probably belong elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a list article really though - It's an overview of the book series. Discussing adaptations and possible adaptations of a book series is best suited to a page on the series, and not at the biography page of the series' central character. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a list. Thus it's a "Featured List", not a "Featured Article". It went through PR and FLC as a list and no-one raised the issue of it being an article. It recently appeared on the front page as a List, not an article, and no-one raised the issue with that either. I agree it's not best suited to the character's article, but ramming it into this list is equally damaging. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this isn't a list. If it is, it should be moved to List of Flashman books. However, as it's a prose discussion about a book series it's fine where it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, yes, it's a list, and a featured one at that. List articles do not have to be titled "List of...". If you don't like the fact it's a list article, take it to FLR and see how it goes: let the wider community decide. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Already have. Asked for input from the books Wikiproject also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lists don't have to start with "List of...", we dropped that idea about five years ago. Seriously, you're making somewhat of a meal of this. The peer review and FLC took place with the input of many different editors. You now wish to change all that work because, in your opinion, it doesn't match with your personal definition of a list? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the "list" status. I don't care whether it is a list or not, so long as it doesn't prevent improvement or discussion. It is clear that some of the information at Harry Paget Flashman is better suited here than there, yet the reason my suggestions are being blocked is because "it's a list". If being a list prevents appropriate material from being added (or even being discussed on its merit) then being a "list" is a hindrance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've got that. The point is, it's been agreed that it's a list, that it had a peer review, an FLC review, was promoted merely two months ago. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but we work on community consensus, so please see the PR and the FLC to get a glimpse of that. And now, I suppose, the FLRC you've launched. Let's see, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Robsinden, you seem to be making an issue out of nothing here. Where were you at FLC? Where have you been during the construction process? You seem to be, and I assume good faith when I say this, a drive-by editor who is hell bent on forcing their POV onto an article which has already been assessed as being one of WP's finest works. Your would be better to spend your time doing something useful rather than attempt to ruin an excellent article such as this. --Cassianto^Talk 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting use of "good faith" and "drive-by editor who is hell bent on forcing their POV" in the same sentence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is possible. I'm only saying what I see. --Cassianto^Talk 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging is not a sensible option, in my view. It would turn the existing list into something half-way between a list and an article, and make the page less helpful to the visiting reader by rendering it more difficult to see the wood for the trees. An omnium gatherum is no service to those who read what we write in Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we should be trying to make this a good article. Along the lines of, say, The Chronicles of Narnia or similar. The material in question is far more appropriate on an article about the series as a whole, rather than on the article about the main character of the series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, the quality of good articles is well below the standard we apply to featured lists, as I'm sure you're aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, no, no! Turning something excellent into something mediocre is not what we are about! This is a tight, focused page about GMF's Flashman books - on the same lines as the FL-rated Bond books page. You'll note that just deals with Fleming's books, nothing else. Other pages (GA-rated ones at that) deal with the ephemera. Start building a new page with the aim of getting that to GA, rather than demeaning something that community consensus has decided (twice now) is of FA standard. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we have a consensus-minus-one on all the issues (if they may be so dignified) raised in relation to this page. I am not too familiar with WP protocol: is there a means whereby a discussion such as this (and associated tags accreting to pages) can be declared to have outlived any semblance of usefulness and credibility and brought to a merciful halt? Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We have WP:SNOW and that can be implemented by just about anyone, or an uninvolved admin can review this and close it, or the original nominator can withdraw the request. Those are our choices. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:SNOW applies here in spades, but the relevant page doesn't explain how an ordinary editor like me goes about applying it. Is there somewhere we can post a request to an uninvolved admin to look in and arbitrate? Tim riley (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Least contentious route to closing these down is to make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - that's most helpful. I have done as you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

FLRC close is done. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is mediocre about Adaptations? Surely we can improve it for it to be added if we address the issues. I was hoping for some input from the novels project rather than just the featured lists cabal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the poor English, absent sources, poor referencing, incompleteness and tangential relevance to GMF's book series? Even if done written properly it's still too tangential to a list page of GMF's books. I've already suggested that an overview article is the best way forward: build towards excellence, not reverse into mediocrity. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Where would you propose we make this "overview article"? What else would we put on it? To my mind, this is the overview article, much like The Chronicles of Narnia is for that series. If I was to come to Wikipedia looking for information regarding any adaptations, I would expect to find it here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We "make" it in a new page, like any other new article - The Flashman universe? Flashman? Any other suggestions? As to what to put in it, I ripped this out of the Harry Flashman article: it's not about him and if you free up the article to be about him by removing ALL the ephemera, rather than just the adaptations, then you end up with two stronger, more focused articles. It's the same as James Bond, or Star Trek, if you prefer: overview articles both. It seems this deceased equine is still being abused: can we just move on to trying to build better things, rather than tarnishing what we have? - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this still being flogged? Time to move on to other things I think.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not enough additional information to warrant a standalone article. MOS:NOVELS advocates an Adaptations section. I think that this MOS can equally be applied to novel series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're on your own. Project MOSs are fascinating, but are nothing but style guides. If MOSNOVELS has so much interest in this particular article, let's hear about it. And of course, MOSNOVELS' own MOS page is in violation of MOS in so many ways, it may not be the ideal guide after all.......! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not enough information? Don't be so ridiculous: half of it is there already. the MOS on adaptations is for single books, not series, and there is no need to include. You've asked the question and the consensus is against you here. Do the decent thing and throw move on to pastures new. Why not actually develop something new from this? All it needs is some research and polishing up. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for another article. The content does not warrant that. Hence my suggestion to improve and merge here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion has been discussed and found no merit. The content does warrant another article; so much so that as you seem to be unable to bring yourself to do it for some reason, I'll do it myself. If you want to try and improve something, improve that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(Please remember to sign your posts). Robsinden, remember that we actual follow the real MOS, not those cut and corrupted versions that a lot of Wikiprojects do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The point of an individual MOS is for consistency. The specific one for novels is in order that all novel articles follow the same form. Show me something that says that an adaptations section is not appropriate for an overview article on a novel series, rather than saying that we should just ignore the novel MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Show us something that says series pages must have an adaptations section. Explain why you do not think an overview page is the right page to include that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Because, to my mind, this is the overview page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As no-one from the novel project has contributed, despite my posting of something on the talk page, maybe we need some outside eyes on this... --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you need to grasp the fact that everyone who commented on this, and the debacle of the FLR gave a consensus not to go down your proposed path. Is your opinion so strong that you are prepared to ignore what everyone else tells you? - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone commenting so far seems to come with the opinion that we cannot expand an article because it is a featured list. This is not the case, and it is appropriate to add here. However, if you are going to write a new article, then that's fine by me, but personally I don't think that there is enough for it to stand up on its own. I'm happy to leave this as a compromise for now (the material clearly isn't appropriate at the Harry Flashman article anyway, especially now this article exists), and see how it shapes up. I'd suggest Flashman as the most appropriate article title, as that redirects to Harry Flashman anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

NOVELS MOS is so badly written, if you (Robsinden) think we should be following it, you've got a long way to go before we should listen. Terrible. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an established guideline. Are you suggesting that no-one should be following it??? If you have that much of an issue with it, I'd suggest you take it up there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a load of old bollocks. So yes, I'm suggesting it should be ignored. I have better things to do than chase up project guidelines which are usually nonsense. I'll stick to WP:FLC thanks. I suggest you think more carefully in future before causing such disruption with your point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly your own opinion, and of course, you are entitled to that. However, it is an established guideline, and as such we should be following it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to ignore it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's _not_ an established guideline, it's a wikiproject guideline which is entirely optional, is full of errors (I'm sure you can spot many of them?) and it's not that I don't like it, it's just that it's actually crap. Mind you, it's spectacular in its popularity, what 120-odd edits in six years? Must be really up to speed with things. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the go-to guideline that anyone writing an article on a novel would expect to and be expected to follow. If you have that much of an issue with it, you really need to address it at the guideline. Simply saying here that we should ignore it isn't helpful to Wikipedia at large. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. It's a shambles. If you want to follow a shambles, that's your choice. I'll follow MOS, not some half-baked amateur distillation of it, full of errors. Still, you clearly accept all those errors with your advocacy of such a terrible piece of work, it speaks volumes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Discuss your issues at the guideline so that other editors can benefit from your wisdom when using the appropriate MoS when writing articles about novels. There's no need to discuss here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said, I have no interest in these parochial "guidelines", I'll stick with the real deal. You go chase your dragon. Are we done here? Can we close this down now? Or do you have another angle from which to attack this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is part of the MoS, not a "parochial guideline". And seeing as all you seem to be doing is accusing me of bad faith, then yes, we're done here. But there's no need to "close" every discussion. They should be left open in case other editors want to contribute. Wikipedia is an evolving organism. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact you wish to blindly advocate a parochial guideline full of errors is sufficient for me to consider this discussion closed. It's not bad faith, it's good faith that I've bothered thus far. This, however, is beyond the tipping point. (You are aware that even the title of the MOS is erroneous?!!). Let's close this down and move on. I'm sure you have better things to do, as do the rest of us. (Although I note that you've now started editing the MOS yourself, well done!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Closed merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've closed the merge discussion for a couple of reasons. Firstly because a consensus arose that what we have here is fine without the proposed additions. Secondly, and more importantly, because there is now a draft overview article at Outline of Flashman, which is where the information belongs: the one thing I think everyone can agree on is that the information is not relevant in the Harry Flashman article, which should be about the character. If you want to start a new merge discussion then I cannot stop you, but it would seem more appropriate to develop either the character or overview articles to GA or FA standards than to continue with this endlessly circular debate. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As above, I've accepted the compromise. I'd suggest simply Flashman as a more appropriate title - it's a redirect to Harry Flashman anyway (probably from before this article existed). --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss it in the appropriate location. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publication order

Should "Flashman and the Tiger" (the story, not the book) really be listed as eleventh in publication order when it was first serialised in the Daily Express in 1975? Opera hat (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)