Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories/Archive 1

James Bond novels
Just wanted to let all my fellow Bond nuts know that I have a website devoted to the Young Bond series (and other Bond literary news) -- The Young Bond Dossier. The site is going strong with almost daily NEWS updates (who would have thought there was so much to say about the Young Bond series).

I’ve also extended the site beyond Young Bond to other Bond literary happenings like the Centenary Novel, The Moneypenny Diaries, and the Titan reprints.

So (here comes the commercial) when you need news on what's happening in the world of the literary Bond (and beyond), head on over to The Young Bond Dossier.

Cheers. --Zencato 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up
I just noticed this article (which was obviously spunoff from the main Bond article) had no real introduction, so I have added it, along with a bit of updated information. I also changed the "sources needed" tag. The one that was there before implied the article had no sources at all, but this is incorrect, so I changed it to one asking for more sources. 23skidoo (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GoldenEye
I can see that GoldenEye is listed before Cold Fall because it was published first, but shouldn't there be a not somewhere saying that chronologically, Cold Fall comes first. Emperor001 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. For one thing the novelisations exist in a separate continuity -- and are often listed separately. Plus the point is to list the books in the order of their release. Chronological issues are to be handled within the book articles themselves. 23skidoo (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Racing change
Could someone please explain what this is? It's mentioned repeatedly in the books, I can't find it in the dictionary, and I don't know whom else to ask. Thanks. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, it's a way of changing gears which was common until gears became synchro-meshed. A driver lets up on the accelerator a bit to reduce the strain, then bangs the lever into the next gear without using the clutch. Try it with the modern gearbox and you'll need a garage close by for the re-build! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's another term for double de-clutching, although I see that the wiki article on ddc mentions that the clutch is used to take the car out of gear as well. Only wimps do this.  It can be done just as easily on a modern car as it can on an older one - like all driving, it just takes practice and a force of will to not use the clutch, which is ingrained from the first time you sit behind the wheel.  My father taught me to drive using both the clutch and to ddc, just because it makes you appreciate better clutch & accelerator control.   a_man_alone (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

More like a list?
I've just glanced over this article, and, to me, it seems better suited as a list than a prose-heavy article. I'd propose moving it to List of James Bond novels and stories, then trying it at Featured list candidates rather than good article nominations. Just my thoughts. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 19:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've removed the GAN, changed to a List and gone through Peer Review. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit undone without explanation
SchroCat has undone |undone a recent edit of mine. The edit restores a cite, which SchroCat previously removed in December, that discusses the origins of most of Fleming's characters besides Bond himself.

I know that SchroCat has done a lot of good work on Bond-related articles. I don't appreciate, however, him (again) removing a non-vandalism edit with relevant information that isn't covered elsewhere in the article or in related articles. More seriously, he did so without explanation, which is a very bad thing to do when not dealing with vandalism. Looking at SchroCat's edits he rarely uses summaries at all, which is very bad practice. Ylee (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I took the cite out when taking the article from a B or C class article to a Featured List. It passed as an FL on 29 Jan - only ten days ago and it did so without the cite, which is of only tangential importance given the central topic of the article. Would you rather revert all the recent edits to take it back to a B or C class article? or just the tangential information? Aside from that the information is covered in a number of other articles, including a brief reference in this article, James Bond, Ian Fleming, James Bond (character) and Inspirations for James Bond. On top of all that, the formatting of your added edit was as incorrect as your addition to the Ian Fleming article. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about straw men. In order:
 * I have said nothing about undoing all or most of your hard work. Please don't claim that I did. (An article's FA/GA status gives it absolutely no protection against further edits, by the way.)
 * The cite discusses how almost all of Fleming's characters--not just Bond himself, or M, or the Bond girls--had some link to real life, and specifically Fleming's life, even if it was just the name. That is not covered in any degree in any related article. (Arguably it would be better placed in a List of James Bond characters, but no such article currently exists.)
 * The r tag is a valid synonym for &lt;ref name=xyz/&gt; when reusing cites.
 * Most seriously, you didn't bother to address my concerns about your violation of WP:FIES. It's not a rule on the level of WP:V or WP:RS or WP:AGF, true, but it is still good practice for a reason. Beyond the especial no-no of omitting when reverting, not summarizing edits--even briefly, like "Tweak" or "fix" or "spelling"--makes reviewing them much more difficult for other editors. When coupled with attitudes like the one you display above, it gives the impression of WP:OWN. Ylee (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Straw Man? No. I addressed the points you raised, no more. I do think you're missing the whole point of why I removed it, which is that the information previously sat within an article: this is a list and as such it takes a different pathway than the article did. Putting the information back in does not make sense given what this page now represents. It is not a full in-depth analysis of the path of the novels which needs each element (such as the names) to be analysed; it is a list, covering the main points of the overall subject. Either way, your points, in order:
 * I didn't say you did, I asked if you would like to take the article back to a lower level than it has achieved recently: your edit is a step in that direction.
 * Specifically, see James Bond, Ian Fleming, James Bond (character) and Inspirations for James Bond for information that discusses how all of Fleming's characters had some link to real life, and specifically Fleming's life, even if it was just the name. Furthermore the information on an individual basis is covered in each of the stand-alone novel articles which cover the characters of each of the novels. Additionally other articles are also in the process of being updated (M, Felix leiter etc) which show where these repeat characters originated.
 * If one format is used with an article it is good practice to stick with it, especially in an FA or FL. Furthermore the date format you used was incorrect and links should never be used within a quote box.
 * I don't claim to "own" any of the articles: I do claim to have been one of a number of people who have added to them and to try and keep them to a high standard, that is all. Please do not try to insinuate otherwise. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That the article is a list is irrelevant to whether the cite is appropriate for it or not, since it was located in the textual discussion portion above the list table itself. That said...
 * You are correct about James Bond containing such a discussion. I apologize for my mistake in missing it; this is 100% my error.
 * I am not aware of any prohibition on cite links within quoteboxes. While additional parameters can be used with {quote} and other templates when it is appropriate to provide a source for the quote within the quotebox itself, they are not always necessary; the additional parameters are optional for a reason.
 * While I agree that the date format could have been made consistent, revert warring over date formatting is unacceptable. Fix date-consistency issues instead of willy-nilly deleting/reverting them.
 * ...And that yet again brings us back to your consistent refusal to provide edit summaries in almost all cases, even when it is especially needed such as when reverting. As stated above, I acknowledge that I was mistaken. That said, a brief edit summary explaining your reason for reverting would have been both illuminating to me, and--more importantly--is strongly recommended good practice. Again, if you want to avoid being accused of WP:OWN, don't commit the WP:OWNish behavior of acting as if your edits don't need explanations. Given your also consistent refusal to discuss your behavior I don't expect you to ever address it and will end the discussion here, but if it's shamed you enough to summarize future edits I will be satisfied. Ylee (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to have to go back over the same ground again, so pretty much see all I've written above in response your points. However, by way of some clarity:
 * SeeMOS:QUOTE, particularly the sub-section headed "Linking"
 * It really is rather disingenuous of you to even suggest I am guilty of edit warring – I've reverted just one—not really edit warring it is? It's similarly misleading to suggest that the removal was on the grounds of the date format alone, as above it was on a number of grounds. Straw man? I think the mantle may sit more lightly on your shoulders than mine! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I throw up my hands and surrender. I only hope that, regardless of your persistent refusal to address it here, I've indeed shamed you enough to start describing your edits and, perhaps, even not revert people who commit the grievous sin of not maintaining consistency in date formatting. Otherwise you are, based on your behavior, going to get yourself in trouble under WP:OWN sooner or later. Ylee (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting bored of having to clarify your repeated insinuations here, so perhaps this will help: I DID NOT REVERT YOU ON THE GROUNDS OF THE DATE ALONE. Has that got through, or is your intention to deliberately smear by innuendo alone? And, as above, once more: "I don't claim to "own" any of the articles: I do claim to have been one of a number of people who have added to them and to try and keep them to a high standard". - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Yes, I am contradicting myself above by responding when I promised I'd exit this discussion.) I am aware that you also claimed wikilinking within the quote and varying cite-reusing template formats as reasons. I know that MOS:QUOTE advises against wikilinks within quotes when they don't exist in the original, but that's no more a justification for reverting as opposed to editing, than doing so due to the date format. (Besides, the MOS:QUOTE advice is specifically for situations in which misinterpretation of the quote may be possible by linking to something that isn't expressed addressed by the quote. In this case, the link was to the Jamaica Gleaner. No ambiguity possible.) As for cite-reusing template, WP:FACR only mentions consistency in the context of phenotypes as opposed to genotypes; that is, the way they appear and behave, not whether &lt;ref/&gt; or r is used in the invisible code framework.
 * My point about OWN is that your behavior is hypocritical. In eight years of Wikiediting I am aware of no other editor who would revert an edit based on violations of date-format consistency and wikilinking within a quote, let alone cite-template consistency. You claim that you keep a "high standard", and perhaps your doing so--while eccentric--is justifiable in that sense. However, you do so while violating WP:FIES, a much more serious and important Wikirule especially when reverting, and your edit history shows that you almost always violate it. How in the world do you justify that? That, in conjunction with reverting over relative trivialities like date formatting and quote wikilinking, is pretty blatant OWNish behavior as it demonstrates 1) a refusal to cooperate with other editors and 2) a refusal to explain your own actions. I had to start this Talk discussion, after all. Ylee (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure whether you are deliberately misunderstanding things, or whether you don't actually get what I've said above. Either way, good luck with whatever you're doing... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother, Schro - looks like a troll at work here! ;) Nice work on the Bond articles btw! - hydeblake (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Table
Barsoomian, It's not a question WP:OWN and I strongly resent the implication. My issue is that the table as it now stands is a total crock: the formatting is a mess and as you're the one who has made it a total mess I don't see why I should spend time clearing it up. Secondly, the dates are such an aberration it's untrue (1961 November to 1962 January 1??? What on gods green earth is that supposed to mean?). The publication dates also utterly superfluous – they are covered elsewhere and are not connected to the chronology. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly smells of WP:OWN. Maybe I shouldn't have actually said that, but wholesale reversion of my work is pretty provocative. But I'll drop that. 1) the formatting is just matter of one word in the header. I've done that the way it was before, I hope you approve. 2) Since there are two chronologies, with different sequences, making the table sortable lets you compare them easily. But no one actually forces you to click on the sort buttons, so why not leave them for those that find it interesting? The simplest way to make dates sortable is to have year first. I don't see any ambiguity in "1961 November to 1962 January 1"? How is that a problem? But I can use a date template like Start date which would be both sortable and more conventional in display. (PS: done that now) 3} Pub date is of course mentioned elsewhere in the article, but as in the intro to the chronology, that is relevant to the  chronoplogy. The table is only three (or four) columns so there is no layout issue in adding that. 4) You also reverted my change to "the novels are supposed to flow in a chronological order" to "the novels are supposed to be set in order of publication", which I did as the previous wording is quite meaningless, unless you specify what you mean by "chronological order", as I did.  Aso the "fictional chronology" is redundant, what else could a chronology of a fictional character be? So I changed that. Hope that explains everything to your satisfaction. Barsoomian (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it was a case of WP:OWN then I would have reverted your linking yesterday, even though those links are not needed as the articles are already linked. Apart from three of the publication dates being wrong ("Quantum of Solace" was 59, not 60; "Octopussy" was 66, not 61 and "The Living Daylights" was 62, not 61), having varied date formats in an article is to be avoided - especially when they are sitting next to each other in a table and especially when the article is an FL. I suggest the dts template is used. The altering of your text changes wasa mistake on my part: the baby should not have been thrown out with the bathwater and I apologise. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Before you change to the dts template, please ensure the date format is consistent with the rest of the article: the format should read as: 12 June 2012. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the merits. The title links I did earlier are are redundant, in that they are elsewhere in the article, but for consistency all titles in a table should be linked if there is an appropriate link. I thought it was odd that some prominent titles weren't linked, and had to cast around to find them. Several adaptations weren't linked directly (to the # section of the film article) at all. Also I see that sorting on the "Start date" template doesn't work properly, it seems to do it alphabetically on the output, not the code. How annoying. I will try some others. Please leave the sorting in and I will make it work. I can use hidden text if all else fails.Barsoomian (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1952-1 seems to work. Barsoomian (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that having the publication dates in the chronology table is superfluous since the publication has already been covered, so you are just duplicating information. Not only that it is potentially confusing, because you know, that table is supposed to be covering the internal dating; the publication dates actually have nothing to do with that. The information in the table is being conflated, and it can be misinterpreted that Fleming set the books in the years they were published. I think the real world dates should be kept separate from the "in universe" dates. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You reverted my edits asserting that it had not been discussed -- which you can see above, it was. But I'm not wasting more of my time here when such insular and hostile attitudes greet any contributions. I'll revert everthing I did and leave it all nice and unsullied for you.Barsoomian (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, takes ball, leaves playground. We'll just get on with things here.  Upheavals to featured material is usually subject to discussion before being rolled out wholesale.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They have been discussed, but I don't see any agreement for an extra column. SC seems to be amenable to making the table sortable (which is a good idea) so I added the date sorting back in. In fact the net effect if you compare your last edit to my last edit is that only the extra column has been removed. If someone supports your position on that then we can consider it going back in. Betty Logan (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason the Episodes should be sortable? I can see why either chronology could be, but I'm not sure why you'd want to have the Episodes in alphabetical order (with those in inverted commas listed first or last) Should they be unsortable? Or is there a different logical way to show them? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the episodes need to be sortable, they just ended up that way because the table was made sortable. Individual columns can be marked as unsortable, although I forget what the code is. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made the episodes unsortable. Fanthrillers (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers
Why does the small descriptions give away the ending of each book? Surely it should just give the premise. 81.108.212.88 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why should it? We're not Amazon trying to tempt you into buying the book, this is Wikipedia, summarising the book—all of it and not just the premise. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. People will come here looking at the books to see which to read based on the order. They should have a choice whether to find out spoilers - it shouldn't be forced upon them. Give them as premise, then if they want to read more they can click the link. 86.184.13.116 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing's forced on anyone. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.  Articles should be comprehensive in their coverage and that means synopsising the books here for this list.  Perfectly acceptable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding spoiler warnings would also go against the agreed consensus - please see WP:SPOILERS and WP:NODISCLAIMERS for more information. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Griswold work
I've reverted the edit from in which an entire selection was reverted because it was "based entirely on self-published source". This is partly in line with WP:SPS, but I think it's too narrow an interpretation. A look at the book sees that this goes a little further than the usual self-published sources, not least because Andrew Lycett, author of the biography Ian Fleming, was persuaded to write the Preface, whilst two forwards were written for the book, one by Zoe Watkins, from Ian Fleming Publications, and one by Bond continuation author Raymond Benson. Much of the material in the book was also reproduced with permission from officially approved by Ian Fleming Publications. The book has also been referred to—and referenced by—a number of the mainstream Bond fan sites, such as MI6-HQ.com and commanderbond.net. Whilst WP:SPS is a good rule of thumb to keep out blogs and tweets, Griswold's work falls outside such ephemeral nonsense and the section deserves to remain. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a self-published source is largely unreliable. If, as you say, the book is referenced by published more reliable sources (and no, fan sites are an inaccurate and inadequate choice of argument to support your revert here), then let's see them. You might personally think the Griswold musings are the perfect source, but you need to demonstrate that reliable sources - again, not fansites - have endorsed his material as well, Without it, I don't see how the material can stay in. You should consider the time between now and when it will be removed from the article a grace period in which to seek out those reliable, notable sources, SchroCat. I imagine that grace period won't really last all that long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is this, vendetta time? You not got anything better to do? I have provided details of the foreward and preface writers - have you looked at them? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 03:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am looking solely at the material you have reverted back into the article. The only citation listed there is for Griswold. What other references are you referring to that citable use Griswold's material? I find your contention that the Griswold material "goes further than the usual self-published sources" to be an opinion.
 * And when it comes to fixing articles, I've got plenty more to do. I just noticed this problem while getting an overview of your editing style and trying to figure you out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to figure me out, it's simple: I largely (although not entirely) edit Bond-related articles. I improve them and get them up to GA status. My record of doing this so far is passable and there's a list of them on my user page. I'll get back to the Griswold point shortly; I'm in the midst of the 3RR response. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See |Ian Fleming Publications for what they call their list of "approved reference books", it's a short list of only four books, one of which is Griswold. If the book is approved by them, then the question of the actual publishing house is neither here nor there. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unable to see the link you have provided. Could you please bullet-point it out instead of trying to hyperlink it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Go to http://www.ianfleming.com/. The tab at the top "Ian Fleming Publications" then link at the side "FAQs" then, at the bottom of the text, "Next page>". It'll take you to http://www.ianfleming.com/q-and-a.asp?offset=3. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see what you are referring to. Allow me to ask a few questions. First, how notable is IanFleming as a source? I mean, who the heck are they? For all we know, you could be a marketing shill for them (that isn't meant as a bad faith barb, but as a reasoned concern, since it does happen). I am leery of using Wikipedia to push the marketing agenda of a website without apparent editorial oversight; it could all be one guy with a personal website. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Eerrmm.... it's the website of Ian Fleming Publications, Ian Fleming’s family company, holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works, still connected to the Fleming family and the people who also licenced Henry Chancellor, Ben Macintyre and Andrew Lycett to publish their works on Fleming and Bond. They are about as cast iron a source as possible. I'm not sure why you've decided to start stalking me, picking pointless arguments over something so obvious and running some form of vendetta against my edits, but it really is quite tiresome. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can stop the ad hominem attacks at any point, SchroCat. I disagree with your unsupported view that the website is a reliable source. All I asked for was supporting citation as to that fact. Can you provide that or not? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you at all: I'm pointing out that the website is the site of Ian Fleming Productions and it the official site of all Bond copyright material. I really don't know what more you want or need. Would you like me to find a number of news reports about the site to back it up? Have you undertaken any research to look to see if it is or is not the official site? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"The WP:BURDEN of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I don't think it's disputed that AuthorHouse is a vanity publisher. If Griswold's book should be exempted from the wikipedia policy on self-published sources, the case should be argued at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Opera hat (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to open a case then please feel free to do so: I am sure that a book sanctioned by the official rights holders will pass the criteria. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But you're the one saying Griswold's book is a reliable source. The burden of evidence lies with you. You may well be right, but at present, there is no consensus that this particular self-published source should be regarded as reliable. Material not supported by a citation to a reliable source can be challenged and removed - which I've just done. If you disagree, WP:RSN is the place to say so. Opera hat (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Opera hat. Get a consensus from RSN, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Opera hat, I am a little disappointed that you reverted before the discussion had run its course, but it has now moved over to Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a decision. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this was ages ago, but I forgot to respond at the time. I take the view that if any material is being challenged/is under discussion as insufficiently verified, the default should be against including it until the discussion is resolved. Opera hat (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * it's as delayed a response as yours, but perhaps you should have looked more clearly at what is an obviously reliable source before reverting, or at least looked at the facts once they were explained and were as clear as they are here. - SchroCat (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Opera hat, I've reverted again as per the Reliable sources/Noticeboard "It can't be denied that John Griswold's book is a reliable source". All the best - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted it back, SchroCat. This is a Featured Article, and one of the things that that means is that the article must remain stable, or it very quickly gets dropped back to GA until the crazy back-and-forth ceases completely. You've had one supporting viewpoint in RSN, and you know that one person does not a consensus make. If numbers were all that were important, you now have a balanced field - two for and two unconvinced. You need more, so as to settle any voice of dissent that might occur. We want to make sure tht this question doesn't come up again in a few weeks or months. Be patient. We are not in a hurry, and you shouldn't be either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an FL, not an FA and I'm fully aware of the stability issue: if you hadn't reverted it would be even more stable. The advice from the RSN was fairly clear and it was followed to the letter. Your reversion appears to be another step in a WP:HOUNDing process of insulting editors, using profanities and your obvious desire to try and somehow engage in rather spurious arguments. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime you wish to stop with the petty accusations would be the right time, SchroCat. Seriously, it isn't going to help you find any collaborative assistance in Wikipedia. If you are unprepared to have your words or edits challenged, the door is right there. You need to examine your own behavior here as well. Had you discussed the matter after beign reverted by another, instead of plowing ahead, the article would be even more stable. It is just as much about respecting your fellow editors as it is about working with them without alienating them. I am sorry that you are offended by my free usage of the word 'piss' and 'ass' - I can try to limit my usage of those two words while in your vicinity of delicate sensitivity. As for "engaging in spurious arguments", you should probably realize that my goal in editing Wikipedia is not dealing with people expressing disappointing tendencies and personal attacks. Don't take this the wrong way, but 'you aren't worth my time'. There are so many things i'd like to do in Wikipedia; responding to your little zingers of incivility are pretty close to the bottom of my list. You don't like the way I edit, fine. Edit somewhere else. If you choose to stay, you do so with the understanding that we aren't always going to fall in line with your viewpoint. Find enough that do, and we're all fine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert this material again. Just to confirm the edit summaries, this material went through both a peer review process in December 2011 and then the FL process in January 2012 (and a subsequent Good Topic process in April 2012). At no point was it questioned, or was it suggested that it should be removed. The Peer Review and FL process can stand as the consensus until the RSN is complete. IF they find differently then so be it. As to your above posting, I am afraid I will not "edit somewhere else" simply because of your approach. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have spoken sooner, but for an entirely unnecessary s/z dispute elsewhere. I'm mixed about the Griswold chronology. I question his research: I suspect some dates he's pulled out of a hat. I also don't see the point of this chronology. In fairness, I've never read his book so I may be wrong. I also wonder if reproducing Griswold's research/findings is a potential copyright violation. However, as a number of experienced Bond editors let the chronology remain in the article, I never saw any reason to object. Further, the IanFleming website SchroCat cites is the official website of the Fleming estate heirs, and has nothing to do with the publishers. The Fleming estate also owns tens of thousands of Bond-related documents (including manuscripts) in their archives. Griswold was one of the lucky few given access. As SchroCat rightly points out, the Fleming estate also endorsed Griswold's work. One of their (now former) directors wrote one of the book's two introductions. SchroCat also notes that the article endured rigourous review to earn FL status. I side with SchroCat, but only on the basis of the arguments Opera Hat and Jack Sebastian have raised. Otherwise I remain mixed. Fanthrillers (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not a copyright expert, I'm not worried about the copyright aspect: the originators of the material are clearly identified as Griswold and (now, newly included) Chancellor, both in the text and the footnotes. Griswold's work runs over three pages, Chancellor's over two and this short section is is a précis of their conclusions. I appreciate your concerns with Griswold, but everything he has outlined has been referenced and the thread of argument has been shown. Chancellor also refers to Griswold's chronology when he lays out his thoughts, reinforcing both the approach Griswold has taken and thereliability of his work in toto. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a fair use rationale would cover it. It is partly the product of a creative effort rather than just reporting a fact (i.e. both you and I could source the number of copies sold for a book, but it is extremely unlikely we would construct the chronology in exactly the same way) so has a lot in common with an image (i.e. if we both sketch the Eiffel Tower). Personally I would fill out Non-free use rationale for each chronology and add them to the top of this talk page just to cover the copyright angle. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Contribution by Ann Fleming?
I'm sure that one of the Bond novels or short stories was left unfinished at Fleming's death, and it was completed by Ann Fleming, with the publisher challenging the reader to spot the join. Anyone remember this? Valetude (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just not true, I'm afraid. See The Man with the Golden Gun (novel) for the background to the final novel: Ann was supremely uninterested in his work and would not have finished this. There is a source that specifically dismisses this rumour, but I don't have that to hand for the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)