Talk:Around the World in Eighty Days

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hot air balloon[edit]

Does anyone know why hot air balloons are so strongly associated with this book, when they're not actually used in it? Nearly every printing of the book has a hot air balloon on the cover, and all the movie and TV versions seem to make lots of use of hot air balloons. Was there a popular early film adaptation that had a big hot air balloon sequence? Or is it just people think of it because they think it was an exotic form of transportation in the mid 1800s? --4.246.9.106 03:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can only imagine it is due to some confusion between Jules Verne's '...80 Days' novel and 'Five Weeks in a Balloon' novel. I think '5 weeks...' was written first, but I don't know when either became well know or more popular. Maybe it was in a joint edition of both books together or something, where the cover picture was from '5 weeks...' and people who didn't know the stories thought the balloon was for '...80 days' and so when creating covers for future editions based them on this older edition. Evil Eye 09:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a balloon was used in one of the most memorable sequences in the 1956 film adaptation. In this case, one has to admit that the departure from the original novel was well done and entirely appropriate.

If there's no objection, I'm integrating the stublet Around the World in 80 Days (novel) into this article, which will cover both the novel and the film. --Brion VIBBER 16:19 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

Why 80 days? Cutler 00:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because Verne was inspired by reading a newspaper article that showed how, with the wonders of modern passenger travel, it was now possible to travel around the world in eighty days using only regularly-scheduled ships and trains. The key event, if I recall correctly, was the opening of the trans-India railway, which knocked a month or two off the travel time. --Paul A 06:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the Trans-indian railway took so much off the time. The sea distance around India seem to be 1900 nm, and would take eight days in a 10 knot steam ship. A much larger saving, several months, was made possible thanks to the Trans-USA railway and the Suez canal.-- BIL 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to movies seems to omit a major one; 1989 Move remake.

The False Balloon is not a "hot air balloon"!![edit]

I see this in virtually every article I've seen here, where an old fashioned ascension balloon is described as a "hot air balloon". The sort of balloon that Jules Verne wrote about in other stories like The Mysterious Island and Five Weeks In A Balloon were lifted by hydrogen, helium, or some other lighter-than-air gas. There was no hot air involved. In fact, one article described the balloon as a "hydrogen hot air balloon", certainly a most lethal contraption.

I've tried correcting this error two or three times, but somebody keeps changing it back to "hot air".

Why Passepartout[edit]

Jules Verne’s mother had a Scottish ancestor from 1462 and the family lived in, and he grew up in, Nantes in Brittany. Brittany has this name as it is the area of France where Celtic Romanised Britons fled to escape the Anglo Saxons who invaded Britain after Rome withdrew from there. Verne visited Scotland, England and America, and a number of his stories have English speaking characters and settings. Whether he spoke English I haven’t been able to find out, but as in ’80 days’ his works can have a decidedly English setting and seeming understanding. Phileas Fogg, the Reform club and the life of a ‘Gentleman’ in London of the day, and a lot of the travel is through parts of the British Empire and English speaking USA.

There had long existed the practise of countries providing letters or documents requesting safe travel for the holder in other countries. In 1858 the UK introduced a form of this that we would know as a Passport today, about 15 years before ’80 days’.

Could it be that the name of Fogg’s butler ‘Passepartout’ is a pun? A phonetic pronunciation of this name is ‘pass-port-too’. To travel around the world in eighty days you needed a Passport too? A literal translation of the name from French is ‘passes everywhere’, so even in French it could still be a pun, Fogg needed someone to help him ‘pass everywhere’. (This was put up by B C James who didn't read the instructions properly and so my details didn't appear, when I work out how to do it I'll add it.)

I consider this explanation idle speculation. Passepartout, at least the way we use it in German as a word borrowed from French, means "fits everything" and is used for the neutral background in a picture frame. Passepartout as a name could thus just mean that Passepartout can cope with any situation he is confronted with - he will never feel out of place.
Unless there is proof that his name is a pun on "Passport" (maybe by a contemporary review of his book), I wouldn't add this.
I don't think it's a pun, as the word doesn't stem from "Passport". I believe "Passe-partout" (fits everywhere, goes everywhere) is French for "master key" or "skeleton key", one that opens all doors. I suppose in the novel, it was a reference to the jolly fellow's rich experience in trades and professions of all kinds. --Krickles 23:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons[edit]

I removed this passage as it's only one anecdote among many on the trip and very much out of context. If someone wants to find a better place for it please feel free to.

During the train ride across America, Passepartout and other passengers meet some Mormon missionaries. Though the other passengers leave, Passepartout listens to their entire explanation of the Mormon religion, but when he is asked to join the religion he refuses.

~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan's parody [2004][edit]

The previous version had obvious factual errors realted to not understanding this film is a parody of the other films by the same title; and so I've fixed them. Joncnunn 19:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost day[edit]

It is impossible for Phineas Fogg, who fired his valet for bringing shaving water 2 degrees cool, to have made the error of one day in his journey. After the third day out, his watch would be wrong by one hour and getting prpgressively worse. It would have taken him about three seconds to guess why, when he got up at 7 o'clock by his watch, it was still pitch black. To my knowledge, no one has ever mentioned this fatal flaw in the story. (Ralph Spitzer, July 11, 2006.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.202.82 (talk • contribs) .

The international date line was not established until after the book was written. So the idea of "loosing a day" was novel for the typical reader (and thus Fogg also). He could have continued to reset his watch without thinking about it. Verne himself only got the idea from a science magazine, and from a plot device used in a Edgar Poe story. -- Stbalbach 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph has stated the issue backwards, although his basic point is sound. Fogg was going west to east against the apparent motion of the Sun, hence solar days in his frame of reference would be shorter than 24 hours. His watch (staying on London time) would, after a few days, read slow relative to the local solar time, not fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The International Date Line existed in reality because it has to exist. The date in California afternoon was not the same as Japan morning, since Japanese clocks show (then approximately) 17 hours more. The line did not exist in formality, but had to exist in reality. Mr Fogg should have noticed when he arrived to the United States that his day was not the same as the day in US. But maybe there were trains every day, so he didn't notice. He should have noticed in New York when he wanted to board the ship, which he had a ticket for, going on a specific day, but unfortunately he missed the ship. Actually he should have been able to catch the ship, since his clock showed GMT+19 (adjusted gradually during the trip), but a correct clock showed GMT-5 in New York, causing the ship to leave one day later than he thought. Anyway it is a novel not reality and if he noticed it in the US, it would have destoyed the effect. -- BIL 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. If he had kept track of it, there would have been no suspense. Plus, this could have been a device by the author to instill some humility. As I recall, the protagonist was rather full of himself. Wahkeenah 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's so strange: Foogs arrived at Cunard's pier 23 hours and 15 minutes before the China's departure that it was scheduled but he missed it. That means the China left NYC one day in advance: strqnge isnùt it ? Phil94 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to this very same Wikipedia, the International Date Line did not exist before the book was published. Besides, it is an imaginary line, it does not "have to" exist. The whole point of the lost day depends precisely on the IDL not existing. If it had, Fogg would have substracted a day on his watch after he had crossed it from west to east (that's how it works), therefore he would not have held the day of his comeback for sunday, but for saturday (which was the correct date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.45.98 (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a mention in the novel of Phileas Fogg having a watch. In Chapter 1 he consults a clock, which of course he did not take with him. Passepartout has his watch throughout the novel, but he famously refuses to believe in the time difference so he would not notice anything. 91.107.185.222 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The International Date Line is irrelevant, and the article is incorrect in naming it as the reason Fogg got back a day earlier than he realized. The simple explanation is that, due to his traveling east, the sun set a little earlier every day, from Fogg's perspective, than it would from that of a stationary person. Over the course of his journey, therefore, he witnessed 80 sunsets, and thought 80 days had passed; when in fact only 79 days had passed. If you do a little figuring, you'll realize that he would see one, and only one, extra sunset whether he went around in 80 days, 50 days, 20 days, or 1 day.
The section "Origins" several times implies that gaining a day in the manner described in the book is impossible ("Poe's short story clearly pokes fun at the prospect of either gaining or losing a full day when traveling around the world.", "clearly bordered upon the impossible", "Detailed present-day reasoning against such possibility appears in Around the World in Eighty Days and its Doubling of Midnight."). This is wrong. While it may be improbable that Fogg managed to travel for about 3 weeks (at least from San Francisco to London) without ever seeing the local date (on a newspaper, a timetable, etc.) is is clear that on his journey he would have witnessed 80 sunsets. I think that the last 4 paragraphs should be removed entirely. --Ligneus (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a series of books, one if which is 'can Jane Eyre be Happy', which consist of short essays that discusses technical points in classics. They point out that the travelers return on Saturday, believing it to be Sunday. However, apparently there was no way you could possible mix up those two days of the week. On Saturday everyone would have been out and about buying and selling things (i.e. it was a weekday) and that on Sunday everyone was quietly going to church (i.e. it was the weekend). However, apparently in France they DIDN'T have sunday trading laws and in France it WOULD be possible to mix those two days up. I read the essay ages ago and can't remember any references, but if anyone knows more... ChristineD 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The essay ChristineD is referring to is Jules Verne and the English Sunday by John Sutherland, originally published in the volume Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennett? and republished in the collected set entitled The Literary Detective. Sutherland remarks : "This is an implausibility which would, I think, tend to slip by the French reader ... But for those older readers who can remember the full awfulness of the Victorian Sunday, a phenomenon which lasted well into the last decades of the twentieth century, the ending of Verne's romance will always ring false" --Stephen Burnett 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no mixup between Saturday and Sunday. Fogg was supposed to arrive on Saturday, 20:45, but he arrived on Friday, 20:50. Thinking he was already late he sent Passepartout to buy provisions and returned to his home immediately. He would have noticed the difference only if the London was quiet on Saturday evening. As it was, Passepartout noticed the next morning that it was Saturday and not Sunday. --Ligneus (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually John Sutherland's point is correct, as we see by looking at the sequence of events at the end of the book. Fogg and Passepartout arrive in London at the railway terminus on Friday 20th December, thinking that it is Saturday 21st, and as it seems too late for Fogg to win his wager he goes home. Next day, after Aouda agrees to marry him, he sends Passepartout out to see the minister and arrange for his wedding the day after that - he sets off to do this at about 8.05 pm. When Passepartout sees the minister, he learns that tomorrow is in fact Sunday, and the wedding cannot take place then. He rushes back to inform Fogg, and they rush to the Reform Club, getting there with seconds to spare, so Fogg has in fact won the bet.
There are several problems with this, not all of them in Sutherland's essay. Firstly, and most importantly, can Fogg and Passepartout really have spent the whole day thinking it was Sunday when it was really Saturday? The city would be a great deal noisier then than on a typical British Sabbath, and also they might have realised that no church bells were ringing. Secondly, Fogg would have needed a special licence to marry at such short notice, but there's no mention of this in the book. A third point is that the railway timetables were different on a Saturday from those on a weekday, but I suspect that only an expert in 19th century railways could say if this is really valid. Finally, an error which may be caused by the translator, as it doesn't seem to exist in all editions - in the Oxford World's Classics version, which is Sutherland's reference version, it says that when the duo arrive at the terminus, "8.50 was striking on all the clocks in London". I know of no public clock which strikes at ten minutes to the hour. None of this, of course, detracts from the merits of one of the great adventure stories.Jon Rob (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note: The article says, "If [the International Date Line had existed], he would have been made aware of the change in date once he reached this line." Maybe. If the Date Line had formally existed, and if it was shown on the ship's charts, then the captain of the General Grant might have announced to the passengers that they were crossing it. But even so, it's likely that some passengers would have missed hearing the announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:D2:100:447F:3F25:8F1C:843B (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

video game[edit]

there was an around the world in 80 days game. it was an educational game played on old apple computers. i played it at primary school back in the early 90s, maybe a reference to that could be included?

Elevation of the Great Salt Lake[edit]

In all the English editions of the book to which I have access, Chapter XXVII Paragraph 17 is translated from the original French as:

The Salt Lake, seventy miles long and thirty-five wide, is situated three miles eight hundred feet above the sea.

This is an elevation to rival the Himalayas! Surely the text should read three thousand eight hundred feet above the sea.

My native French colleague tells me that the French for mile and thousand are similiar. The modern elevation given for the Great Salt Lake is some 4200 feet. It is my suggesion that Verne was mistranslated at an early date and that this mistake has propagated. Am I correct? Should this be put right? Can this be put right? - Hawden 10th February 2008

As a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah, I can confirm that the great salt lake is at approximately 4200 feet, so yes, that is correct. -- Javawizard (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currency Conversion Issue[edit]

I calulated what £20,000 would be worth in 2007 using an online inflation calculator and got a figure of £1.2 million Harry Hayfield (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More issues are here, in that there are various ways to convert to arrive at 'Today's' value, a citation or two is valuable to make this more transparent. Of course, also is the issue of "when is today?" as a matter of Wikipedia policy, best to be precise with dates. Also, there is the further matter of Significant Figures. I would hazard a guess, that due to the vagaries of converting historical sums into present day sums, it extremely unlikely that the sum of 20 or 40 thousand pounds could be given an approximation with any more than 2 significant figures. Thus, you might well say that £20000 would be about £1.2 million in 2007 terms (I suspect though that £1million might be better), but it is extremely unlikely that you could say, with real confidence, that £40,000 is equal to £2,648,577 in 'today's' money. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to ask about the same thing. We really should change these numbers. --Khajidha (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dénouement [sic]?[edit]

The Verne quote about reading the story about going around the world and realizing the effect of the IDL is quoted as "There was a dénouement [sic] ready found". Why the [sic]? The climax of the story is arriving in London 5 min late; realizing that he's on time after all and the story has a happy end is thus quite correctly called a dénouement: "Conflicts are resolved, creating normality for the characters and a sense of catharsis, or release of tension and anxiety, for the reader.. Jpatokal (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Bly?[edit]

"1889 – Nellie Bly undertook to travel around the world in 80 days for her newspaper, the New York World. She managed to do the journey within 72 days, meeting Verne himself in Amiens. Her book about the trip, Around the World in Seventy-Two Days, became a best seller." Isn't 'Nellie Bly' a pen name for Elizabeth Jane Cochran? Calineed (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Club Members[edit]

We know Robert Morley plays one of Fogg's friends in the club. Is Desmond "Q" Llewellyn sitting on Morley's left when Fogg first makes the bet? Grassynoel (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to IMDb. Doniago (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dead or broken Links; Videobook links[edit]

There are some dead or broken links. And someone constantly deletes links to precious {in my opinion} and rare (to English and to French versions) videobooks {audiobook with Text on Screen} on YouTube which are very helpful for foreign language learners much more than just audiobooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.105.22 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost list of adaptations[edit]

This version of the Adaptations section from 2011 has many more adaptations that are missing from the current article, notably the 1956 film. I would have restored it, but I'm not sure if that wouldn't undo some useful additions. Does anyone know what happened to the earlier list?--91.148.130.233 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, most of those items don't seem to have secondary sourcing establishing how they're significant. WP articles shouldn't include indiscrimate lists of adaptations. WP:IPC. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see how the things that are mentioned are shown to be significant, in fact I'd say most of them definitely aren't (really, a song by the Canadian band Klaatu?); certainly less so than the 1956 film. Also, it is my impression that Wikipedia does routinely provide indiscriminate lists of adaptations, often including very obscure ones, and such can actually be useful (the essay you are linking to doesn't talk about this issue at all, as far as I can see). Did you personally delete all of those items for this reason or are you coming up with a justification for this post factum?--91.148.130.233 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the other items aren't significant, and no secondary sourcing is provided establishing their significance, then IMO you're welcome to remove them. Whether or not other articles include indiscriminate lists isn't pertinent, as they may not themselves be up to standards. WP:INDISCRIMINATE discusses indiscriminate lists themselves...if your concern is that WP articles should be allowed to include them, you should discuss this issue there. Probably unsurprisingly, I'd argue that if there's such a list that can be useful, then it should be possible to locate secondary sources for these items that establishes their "usefulness".
Frankly I have no idea whether I deleted them all myself, but I'd certainly support deletion of pop culture items/adaptations/etc. where there's no secondary sourcing provided, especially if the pertinent section had already been tagged in some manner. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of secondary sourcing, exactly, could prove to you that an adaptation (or any other list item, for that matter) deserves to be included in the list? Is it enough for it to be mentioned in any reliable source? Or, perhaps, to be explicitly referred to as "important" or with a synonymous expression? By the way, I see nothing in either of the links that you have provided that clearly entails deletion of parts of a list. "Indiscriminate" is a very vague term and would, in a strict sense, refer only to collections of entirely arbitrary items (which is, actually, pointed out in WP:DISCRIMINATE), as long as one hasn't made it clear that one means one or several more specific criteria for "discrimination". Now, these more specific criteria are described by other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, I do not see which Wikipedia policy or guideline entails the deletion of list items. Perhaps what you mean is WP:notability, but, to quote the summary of that page, "the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article". And even if one did apply it here, the 1956 film does have its own article, so presumably it did not fail the notability guideline either - unsurprisingly, as I see it got some awards back in the day, too.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cartoon Version[edit]

In the TV Adaptations section, the 1984 cartoon "La Vuelta al Mundo de Willy Fog" (known as "Around the World with Willy Fog" in English) is listed by its Japanese name of "Hachijuu Nichikan Sekai Isshu" with a release date of 1987. While it is true that the series was animated in Japan (by Studio Nippon, as listed), it was BRB Internacional who created the series (originally in Spanish). Therefore, I am suggesting an edit to reflect this, removing the Japanese title and date, and using the better known English name (and Wiki link) as the main heading, referencing its original Spanish title and production company. It might also be an idea to change the citation link from the Animé website currently listed to BRB's Willy Fog page (http://brbplay.com/en/shows/willy-fog-en), as this is the official website for the programme. 46.65.125.82 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. The Around the World with Willy Fog article supports the fact that this is a Spanish series, that was "also dubbed into Japanese". DoctorKubla (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Around the World in Eighty Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literary significance and criticism[edit]

As so often on Wikipedia, editors with no sense of irony accuse me of doing things with no explanation, while they revert my edits without explanation having ignored my explanation. Probably they find it funny.

I removed the section "Literary significance and criticism". I explained why in an edit summary. The reason is that it's totally unencyclopaedic. Presenting arbitrary quotes from arbitrary sources with no context or narrative thread is not a worthwhile thing to do. So, what happened?

  1. User:Denisarona reverted, saying "Before deleting, get consensus on the Talk page". I am under no such obligation. Note the lack of any reason for the revert. This user does very little on wikipedia but revert other people's edits, 99% of the time without explaining why.
  2. User:Brianga reverted, saying "Rv blanking". Again, no reason given for reverting. The user left me a message falsely claiming that I hadn't explained my edit.
  3. User:Denisarona again. No reason given. Left me a message falsely claiming that I hadn't explained my edit.
  4. User:David.moreno72 reverted, falsely claiming that I hadn't explained my edit.
  5. User:Virophage reverted, for no reason at all.
  6. User:Kevinalewis reverted, saying "please leave alone and discuss this change in the Talk page". Yet again, no actual reason given for reverting.

If someone has an actual reason to think this content is encyclopaedic, perhaps they'd have the courtesy to share it with us. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the debate here - as you have so ably demonstrated numbers of editors think differently than you - on what basis is this unencyclopedic. I do agree it is a little "bullet point" in character and deserves a little more background and linking narrative - but that can be added. Just removing what is beneficial with "unencyclopedic" and against the prevailing editorial opinion - and then doing it again today - is franckly impolite! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted, again, and you have failed to give a reason for reverting, again. If you cannot think of a reason why you reverted, then don't revert. If no-one bothers to explain why they want this section in the article, then there is no "prevailing editorial opinion", is there? 193.60.234.210 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two more unexplained reverts. Six users have now restored this unencyclopaedic material without bothering to think of any reason based on policy or guidelines for doing so. Shameful. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it is painful having to defend this when you are the only editor here that seems of this opinion.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Above, you say that you are under no obligation to get consensus on a talk page before making your edit. Of course that's true but I don't understand, then, why you think all of us need to now defend our edits to you. Brianga (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons - the quotations are relavant and significant (as I said even though unstructured and not in narrative form) - you on the other hand have basically decided the preexistant text should just go - blanked the section and said "unencyclopedic" and similar. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also isn't just me that reverts you edit (blanking) numbers of other editors are. Also it isn't my text I have no particular axe to grind - other than the loss of information. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the IP at both WP:3RN and WP:AIV, the former for edit-warring at the article, the latter because they were previously editing under another IP (even at this article) which is currently blocked, so right now they shouldn't be editing at all. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP has been blocked for a month, so I'd say there's nothing to see here, at least for the time-being. Thanks all. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Around the World in Eighty Days. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerary: 79 days or 80 days?[edit]

User:Swaggydude changed the itinerary from 80 days to 79 days [1][2] with an edit comment "I changed the number of days since in the book it actually took only 79 days". However, this is the itinerary given at the start of the book [3] and Fogg makes the journey in only 79 days because some parts of the journey are made in less time than the Daily Telegraph's estimate. For example: "The Mongolia was due at Bombay on the 22nd; she arrived on the 20th. This was a gain to Phileas Fogg of two days since his departure from London, and he calmly entered the fact in the itinerary, in the column of gains."

I believe this should be changed back to 80 days to be consistent with the itinerary in Chapter Three of the book:

Here is the estimate made by the Daily Telegraph:

From London to Suez via Mont Cenis and Brindisi, by rail and steamboats ................. 7 days

From Suez to Bombay, by steamer .................... 13 "

From Bombay to Calcutta, by rail ................... 3 "

From Calcutta to Hong Kong, by steamer ............. 13 "

From Hong Kong to Yokohama (Japan), by steamer ..... 6 "

From Yokohama to San Francisco, by steamer ......... 22 "

From San Francisco to New York, by rail ............. 7 "

From New York to London, by steamer and rail ........ 9 "

Total ............................................ 80 days."

If it is to be 79 days and reflect Fogg's journey, then Suez to Bombay needs to be changed, and other segments too. I suggest we go with the book, and 80 days. Ttwaring (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttwaring: Would it not make sense, though, to include the actual itinerary? Under the section on plot, I would think the actual itinerary is more important than the planned one. What do you think? Samton748 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a published reference that can be used, then the actual itinerary would be useful. If the only way of getting it is for an editor to go through the book and decide how long everything took, then that sounds like original research and should not be included. Ttwaring (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept at 80 days. The journey did take 80 days from their perspective (the sun rose and set 80 times); it's just that they weren't 24-hour days. --Sm5574 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Around the World in Eighty Days. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Around the World in Eighty Days. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Liverpool ?[edit]

Leaving Ney York, Phileas Foogg ask to the Captain of Henrietta "to bring him to Liverpool". But the Captain is from Cardiff and the journey would be shorter via Cardiff than via Liverpool. Actually, the fastest way would be New-York-Southampton-London...this is what Queen Mary II do. Phil94 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Serial Publication Date[edit]

According to Britannica, this book was first published serially in Le Temps in 1872. I edited the article to reflect this. Let me know if you have thoughts on my edits. Samton748 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original title[edit]

Is it Le tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours or Le tour du monde en 80 jours? 86.15.168.232 (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like quatre-vingts jours - scanned original and disambiguation page - although the book cover has 80, presumably to use the available space better. Ttwaring (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs two new sections: Translations, and Criticism[edit]

Two sections should be added to this article:

  • Translations: as Verne wrote in French (which itself isn't mentioned in this article), English readers rely on translations. There's been controversy on the accuracy of translations of other Verne works; we need a list of translations of this book, along with commentary on the differences
  • Criticism: at least in the George Makepeace Towle translation, there are many instances of racism and religious stereotypes

-- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days&oldid=1193931667"