Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories/Archive 2

Small reversion
I reverted this from a long time ago. Italics is for works, not characters. I just noticed the problem in tomorrow's Today's Featured Article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm about to put back as it's for series names too. – SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, unless someone can point me to a consensus in the other direction. Replied at User talk:Dank. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His Dark Materials, List of Star Wars books, The Railway Series, The Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight (series), The Hunger Games, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Vampire Chronicles... need I go on? Could you please change back the italics in the blurb to match the article title, and the use of the novel series name, and franchise name. The use of italics partly acts as an easy way of disambiguation the (unitalicised) character from the (italicised) series. – SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Copying to my userpage so the MOS guys will see it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dank. The difference here is that cases such as List of Star Wars books and Twilight (series) are based on existing works that feature the italicised words as the title (i.e., Star Wars and Twilight) whereas the films and novels featuring the character James Bond almost never include his name in the title (certainly none of the films or Fleming's novels or short stories), so it is not appropriate to italicise his name when referring to the series. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree very strongly with both of you. "The James Bond series", or the "James Bond novels" are the Wp:common names from numerous reliable and independent sources for the name of the novel series. A novel series name does not have to be based on one of the titles - that's just making up rules on the hoof to fit your thinking, not the other way round. Both the series and franchise name James Bond should carry the italics Ian Fleming Publications – the Fleming estate which holds the rights and licences – describes them as the "James Bond books". – SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Schro!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This will be hitting the Main Page in about 11 hours. Thoughts welcome here or at User talk:Dank (see discussion). - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your post is somewhat vague, but I presume that you're arguing that List of James Bond novels and short stories should italicize James Bond? My initial interpretation is that these are books about the character, James Bond, and therefore it should not be italicized. Similar examples include list of Nancy Drew books and canon of Sherlock Holmes. I might argue that list of Star Trek novels should be italicized, because it's a list of novels based on the television program, Star Trek, but I don't think a similar argument can be made for Bond. Pburka (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:Dank doesn't seem vague to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not italicising the character name per se, it's italicising the novel series name, and the franchise name. This is common and usual. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is no title, James Bond, to base the italics convention on, so "James Bond" should not be italicised, as Pburka rightly said. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This also applies to List of James Bond novels and short stories (which should not be italicised) and the discussion at. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the Wp:common name from numerous reliable and independent sources for the name of the novel series. A novel series name does not have to be based on one of the titles. Both the series and franchise name James Bond should carry the italics. – SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not supported by WP:ITALICS or WP:TITLES. If the canon of James Bond books is indeed a major work, then it should be italicized, but in that case the individual works would be minor works and would be in quotes (e.g. "Casino Royal" is the first book of the James Bond Adventures.) Pburka (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME goes to the appropriate title, not to font formatting. There is no "official" title—it might just as easily be called the "007" series, for example—so there is no title to italicise.  The common name for the series, "James Bond", is chosen for convenience, but this does not make it "official" and does not warrant italics.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion centralised, please? I suggest leaving the discussion at  where it belongs. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan, could you put the italics back in please: it refers to a series, and so the italics are correct. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll change it if you can point me to a discussion somewhere that seems persuasive ... hopefully at the relevant guideline page (Manual of Style/Titles). The closest thing there is "Books, multi-volume works (e.g. encyclopedias), and booklets". I know people have stretched that (appropriately) to cover multi-volume works of other sorts, such a series of films made by one producer. I've skimmed our related articles, including James Bond, and the problem is that the phrase isn't the title of any work or multi-volume work; instead, it seems to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean. That's fine, but that's the opposite of what italics mean: they denote the common name of a particular work or multi-volume work. We don't have that here. The lead of James Bond uses the term to refer collectively to books, TV, radio, comic strips, video games, and films ... basically, anyone who's used the name. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see discussion at WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Series and franchise names are italicised. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories): His Dark Materials, List of Star Wars books, The Railway Series, The Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight (series), The Hunger Games, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Vampire Chronicles... need I go on? Could you please change back the italics in the blurb to match the article title, and the use of the novel series name, and franchise name. The use of italics partly acts as an easy way of disambiguation the (unitalicised) character from the (italicised) series. – SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh joy, we get to work in one of the few places on Wikipedia where we've got a deadline. I don't want to steal the MOS guys' thunder, I'm going to wait for more comments before I make a call ... but every series you just mentioned is one kind of series with one publisher, exactly the opposite of the situation described in the lead of James Bond, so I'm not convinced. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian Fleming Publications – the Fleming estate which holds the rights and licences – describes them as the "James Bond books". You are confusing the lead of James Bond, which deals with the franchise etc, with the novel series, although both should be italicised. –

Can we keep the discussion centralised, please? I suggest leaving the discussion at  where it belongs. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "I disagree very strongly with both of you. 'The James Bond series', or the 'James Bond novels' are the Wp:common names from numerous reliable and independent sources for the name of the novel series. A novel series name does not have to be based on one of the titles - that's just making up rules on the hoof to fit your thinking, not the other way round." No, it's not.  As Dank pointed out, the relevant guideline is WP:ITALICS, which says:
 * James Bond is not the name or title of a book or film. It may be the common name used to refer to a series of novels and/or films, but that does not make it a title that attracts italics.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that WP:COMMONNAME is a part of Article titles which guides what titles are used on Wikipedia articles (e.g., whether to call our article List of James Bond novels and short stories, James Bond novels and short stories, James Bond in literature, Books featuring James Bond, etc.). WP:ITALICS is part of Manual of Style/Text formatting which guides when to use font formatting such as italics.  Indeed, the former defers to the latter on using italics in article titles— says:
 * Note that the above text actually links to WP:ITALICS for guidance on when italics should be used in running text. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"COMMONNAME goes to the appropriate title, not to font formatting. There is no "official" title—it might just as easily be called the "007" series, for example—so there is no title to italicise. The common name for the series, "James Bond", is chosen for convenience, but this does not make it "official" and does not warrant italics." What straw man nonsense is in here? "it might just as easily be called the "007" series": rubbish. It isn't. It's called the "James Bond series", or the "James Bond novels/books". "this does not make it "official'". Except it is the name given by Ian Fleming Publications – the rights holders and licensees of the Bond name. They are the official source. MoS titles refers to the use of italics for "Books, multi-volume works (e.g. encyclopedias), and booklets". To a large extent a book series is a "multi-volume work", which is why a large number of novel series are italicised. It is not possible to say 'oh, those are OK to be italicised, but not the Bond series'; that's just illogical and unjustifiable. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You undermined your argument by citing COMMONNAME, which says: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Whether Fleming now "officially" calls it the "James Bond series" (which you haven't cited evidence for) is not definitive for the article title.
 * In any case, as noted above, italics are governed by MOS, not COMMONNAME; and MOS says to italicise titles of books and films, not names of series given later. As already pointed out, most of the various examples that you provided earlier use titles of individual works as the name of the series; James Bond doesn't.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do find it rather tiresome to be both misinterpreted and have things I've written ignored. I did not say that Fleming called them anything. I said that the company Ian Fleming Publications called them something. I also clearly said that "numerous reliable and independent sources" call this the James Bond series. As to your claim that "most of the various examples that you provided earlier use titles of individual works as the name of the series", I'm afraid it's patently untrue. The Vampire Chronicles, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Railway Series are but three at a quick glance. I could, if I wanted find a stack more, but somehow I doubt whether anything I am saying is making you open your mind at all. – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the series is irrelevant to this discussion: we're debating how to style the title. Can you point to any policy or guideline which says that we italicize the names of series of books? The closest comparison is to a multi-volume work, like an encyclopedia, but in these cases we italicize the title of the multi-volume work and use quotes for the minor works which it comprises. If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, we would then need to style it "Casino Royale" rather than Casino Royale, but that's clearly absurd. Pburka (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you'd rather the rank absurdity of the confusion created by James Bond James Bond and James Bond? That really is an absurd lack of common sense in play, and goes against the examples I've given you above. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How would italicizing the first one of the three clarify this example? The best way to resolve ambiguity is through clear writing, not arbitrary and unconventional formatting. That other articles are also incorrectly italicized isn't a strong argument, and there are plenty of examples of series which are not italicized (e.g. canon of Sherlock Holmes). Pburka (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And there are plenty of examples that are italicised, so that's not a terribly strong arguement either. This is an example of making a fetish of a flawed MoS and defiantly defending it in the face of reasonable common sense interpretation. This is NOT unconventional formatting unless you are tied to a sub-standard system. The fact that there are so many examples where the MoS has been ignored on this point shows just how ridiculous it is. The MoS should reflect good current use, not be defended past any reasonable point of usefulness. – SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You claim that it's not unconventional, and that the MOS is flawed. Can you point to language in any widely-used style guides which prescribe what you're advocating? If so, I might support revising the MOS. Pburka (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that the official website doesn't italicize "Ian Fleming's James Bond Titles", while it does italicize the individual books. Other examples which don't italicize them as a group include The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Atlantic (I've omitted a number of examples which don't italicize the book titles). I've so far been unable to find a single example of this book series being italicized outside of Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No-one has said IFP use italics, so I'm not sure of your point here. As to asking for othe style guides, last time I quoted external style guides to some sef-appointed "Guardian of the MoS", I was told that it was nothing to do with our own MoS, so forgive me if I feel that you are making the rules and guidelines up as you are going along
 * @sroc, This is an active discussion on the point, so don't force your preferred version in while the discussion continues. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "James Bond" is not the title of a work, so it doesn't get italics. No one else, neither even publisher nor the sources mentioned above, use italics for "James Bond".  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "No one else, neither even publisher nor the sources mentioned above, use italics for "James Bond"." Not true. Don't even try to claim it's true, because you haven't looked properly. How many hard copy independent reliable sources have you looked at? - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue to assert that this usage is common, but have not provided any examples in published sources outside of Wikipedia. I've spent some time researching this, and I found several counterexamples and no supporting examples. I'm willing to be persuaded, but only if you can show that this really is common. So far, all of my research shows that it's never, or perhaps rarely, used in published sources. Pburka (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pburka wrote: "I also note that the official website doesn't italicize 'Ian Fleming's James Bond Titles', while it does italicize the individual books. Other examples which don't italicize them as a group include The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Atlantic (I've omitted a number of examples which don't italicize the book titles). I've so far been unable to find a single example of this book series being italicized outside of Wikipedia." You didn't refute this with any counter-examples; rather, you wrote: "No-one has said IFP use italics ..."  So, if there is no evidence presented that other sources italicise "James Bond" and evidence that various sources (including the publisher) don't italicise "James Bond" even when they italicise the titles of individual works, what is the basis of your objection?  COMMONNAME does not apply to formatting, but even if it did, following "reliable English-language sources" on this would mean not having italics.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out earlier, last time I quoted external style guides to some self-appointed "Guardian of the MoS", I was told that it was nothing to do with our own MoS and should be ignored, so forgive me if my reservoir of AGF has diminished to low levels over people who are happy to make up their own rules when they want to, but will ignore them when it doesn't suit them. I'll post some examples later, and I really wouldn't be surprised if there is a sudden u-turn on whether to look at them or not. – SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Consistency with Main Page feature article blurb
The prominent feature article on the Main Page right now begins: "Casino Royale (1953) is a James Bond novel ..." Note that "James Bond" is not italicised, but it links to List of James Bond novels and short stories which has italics. This sort of inconsistency – because one user here disagrees with three others and despite clear reasoning – is embarrassingly unprofessional. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Utter balls. There is nothing either embarrassing or unprofessional in this, except that an unnecessary change was forced too late in the day for a proper discussion to take place and you are too closed minded to look beyond anything but stubbornly defending a sub-standard MoS. The italics have been in the article title and the article for a couple of years, including when this article was on the front page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SchroCat is right that the change to the Main Page text came late ... that's my bad, and I spent yesterday going through the other upcoming TFAs to try to make sure it doesn't happen again. A request: please don't remove the italics from this page title until we're finished with the discussion (if that's the final result). - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to apologize to SchroCat for how this has turned out so far. There's an understanding at FAC that italics are the kind of fiddly little thing that good writers (such as SchroCat) usually don't care as much about as reviewers and copyeditors do. I saw that SchroCat didn't make the original edit to add the italics, and we had a Main Page deadline coming up fast, so I went ahead and just made the change, as I geneally do both in my copyediting role and at TFA, figuring we'd work it all out if anyone disagreed. The way it's turned out, I can see how SchroCat might think I've been very cavalier, as if I was either clueless or intentionally trying to show how little I valued his opinion. That kind of behavior isn't unknown on Wikipedia, sadly, but it's uncommon with me, and I never had that intention. SchroCat is a conscientious and successful FA writer who does his best to follow the conventions as he sees them, and he isn't wrong to be defending his choice in this case ... for all we know, the italics will stay, after people with FAC experience weigh in. Not that I'm comfortable inviting anyone else to the discussion at the moment, until we get some things sorted out. Schro, in my defense ... no actual harm has been done (yet), I'm just acknowledging that I acted in a way that could easily be misinterpreted. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about how this is panning out, too. I'm open-minded on how this will end up, but yet to be persuaded.  I'm sure SchroCat's intentions are genuine, as are mine.  I had hoped that we might at least keep the italics out while the article is linked from the Main Page for the sake of consistency (and since the discussion is so far leaning against the italics) but could be restored if that is the outcome of the discussion – alas, no.  I would note that  removed italics not only from the title but from relevant parts of the article, so if the consensus is to remove the italics, please keep this in mind.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "I had hoped that we might at least keep the italics out while the article is linked from the Main Page": when this article was on the front page two years ago, it had the italics in the article title, article and the blurb. If you want to consider consistency, you have still not adequately explained why many, many other book series articles use italics (and probably several hundred - possibly thousand - page links), and magically you don't think this one is right. Agan, in the face of such a dual approach which makes a mockery of consistency, my levels of AGF are dipping to an all-time low. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, SchroCat isn't into drama, and I take that seriously. Would it be helpful if we all disengaged for a while, Schro? - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
As it seems there has been some confusion over the issues here, I thought it would be prudent to clarify.

SchroCat has repeatedly referred to COMMONNAMES (e.g., The James Bond series', or the 'James Bond novels' are the Wp:common names from numerous reliable and independent sources for the name of the novel series").  (WP:COMMONNAME) relates to choosing the title of Wikipedia articles:    COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Wikipedia article titles.  This is covered by  (WP:ITALICTITLE), which says:   This, in turn, links to  (WP:ITALICS), which says:  provides a more detailed list of works whose titles should be italicised, including:

I agree that the title of a book series or film series should be italicised, e.g.:
 * Twilight (series) based on Twilight (novel);
 * The Hunger Games based on The Hunger Games (novel);
 * Star Wars based on Star Wars (film) and various other films beginning with these words;
 * The Three Colors trilogy based on Three Colors: Blue, Three Colors: White, Three Colors: Red.

The question is whether this should apply to List of James Bond novels and short stories, since "James Bond" is not actually the title of any novel or film associated with the series, but is the name of the central character. It is my view that "James Bond" is not a title of the series, although the books and films might often be referred to by reference to the character's name. In fact, naming is fractured: Fleming's website refers to "Ian Fleming's James Bond Titles"; a Vanity Fair article refers to "Ian Fleming’s Bond novels"; a Slate article refers to "Ian Fleming's books" and "The James Bond films"; an Atlantic article refers to a "new 007 novel", "Bond novels" and "Fleming's novels"; a Daily Beast article refers to "Bond novels" and "Bond movies". Different sources use whatever name is the most convenient, but as far as I can tell there is no unequivocal, definitive title as there is for Twilight, The Hunger Games, Star Wars and Three Colors.

If you disagree, could you please clarify which aspect of this analysis you disagree with? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So much for disengaging. If I can be arsed to respond to this in the next 24 hours I will do, but frankly I have better things to do than read through you repeating tedious walls of bollocks which you call "clarification", even if you are the one that needs some points clarifying. (For example I have never claimed, even remotely that "COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Wikipedia article titles". I've explicitly said so above, and the fact that you are not bothering to read and take on board what I say to be illustrative and, frankly, tedious and rude). I'll respond in my own good time, but I think you have your wall up and are not in receiving mode at any time, let alone in this matter. – SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I never said I was disengaging. I also never said that you claimed that "COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Wikipedia article titles"; that was me saying that, because it was unclear whether you understood this to be the case.  You said "you have still not adequately explained why many, many other book series articles use italics" even though I have already addressed this.  It remains unclear exactly which aspect of my reasoning you disagree with, so I thought it better to go back to basics by spelling out my position clearly, logically, step by step.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to point out that not everything has a name. The Twilight series has a name; The Hunger Games series has a name; the Star Wars series has a name; the "Sherlock Holmes" series does not have a name; the stories featuring Jeeves and Wooster do not have a name, although they are commonly referred to as "Jeeves and Wooster" and there was a subsequent TV series titled Jeeves and Wooster based on them.  If we use a name for convenience but it is not the actual title of a work (or series of works), then it should not be italicised.  As far as I can tell, this is where we disagree, but I'm not sure if it's because you think that everything must have a title to be italicised (as your comments suggest) or because you think "James Bond" is an actual title in this case (but you accept that there may be other series that have no italicised title).  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear your not disengaging: that would have been constructive and unfortunately it means that your bludgeoning continues. As to the nonsense you've written again, "It was unclear whether you understood this to be the case." Then try bloody reading what people have written: I have never said that was the case, and it's tedious to have people mischaracterise so badly what I have and have not said. As I've said, if I can be bothered I'll reply in a day or so, because I'm hacked off at the misrepresentation and poor attitude to discussion here: it's not constructive and divisive, but from my experience, that's about par for the course for those who pass knee-jerk defensive judgements on the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? How am I misrepresenting you?  I stated, in my own words: "COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Wikipedia article titles."  I never attributed this to you.  I never claimed that you believed it or that you denied it.  I do not know what your position on this is.  You have referred to COMMONNAME, as if to suggest that it is relevant, but this seems to be conflating the issue of titles used for Wikipedia articles with the issue of whether "James Bond" is the title of this series of novels.  I did try to address this in an earlier post, but I'm not sure whether you understood this.  In reverting the changes, you also referred to WP:TITLE which is not the relevant guideline for the use of italics (certainly not with respect to the use of italics throughout the article).
 * I'm trying to keep things on topic by stating very clearly how this relates to the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and asking you to clarify which aspects you disagree with so that we can focus on that. It is unhelpful to divert on irrelevant tangents so I'm trying to focus on the specific points of disagreement in order to have a constructive discussion.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the third time: I will reply in couple of days. This is if I can be bothered to deal with the ongoing harrassment on this. To repeat, I see little constructive in your approach at the moment and I suggest you stop bludgeoning until then. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The italicisation of title of a book series
We have on Wikipedia two formats to show the names of a book series: italicised and normal. As far as I can see, italics are used for the actual title of the cycle of novels. My reference to WP:COMMONNAME is that "James Bond" is the title. It's referred to as such by Ian Fleming Publications, the rights holders to the literary estate. I went through my hard copy sources at home last night; the series title "James Bond" is explicitly referred to as such by the following publications, three of which are also IFP approved reference books. You should note that a number of these are academic books:


 * John Griswold, Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories
 * Christoph Lindner, The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader
 * Raymond Benson, The James Bond Bedside Companion
 * Daniel Ferreras Savoye, The Signs of James Bond: Semiotic Explorations in the World of 007
 * Edward P. Comentale, Stephen Watt, Skip Willman, Ian Fleming & James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007
 * Jon Burlingame, The Music of James Bond
 * Colin Watson, Snobbery With Violence: English Crime Stories and their Audience (Watson also points out that some of the books were advertised on release as "The new James Bond", which is hardly a reference to a new character
 * Nigel Cawthorne, A Brief Guide to James Bond
 * Tony Bennett & Janet Woollacott, ''Bond and Beyond: The Political Career of a Popular Hero
 * Simon Winder, The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond
 * Henry Chancellor, James Bond: The Man and His World
 * Jeremy Black, The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen (numerous, mostly, but not all, as "Bond novels")

This puts the name "James Bond" as the official series name, and therefore something that should be italicised. I do not intend spending much more time on this incredibly minor point: too much time has already been wasted both on and offline on this. – SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do any of the sources you've identified actually italicize James Bond in that context? I disagree with the premise that the names of book series should be italicized (except when the name is derived from something that would normally be italicized, e.g. Star Trek). Pburka (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It matters not whther they italicise. The MoS bids us to italicise the actual title of a cycle of novels. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which specific section do you interpret that way? The only one I see is the reference to multivolume works, like encyclopedias. I'm not sure that was intended to cover a somewhat loosely connected series of novels. (I don't mean to disparage James Bond in this sense; I'm just thinking of it in comparison to something like The Lord of the Rings which consists of three numbered volumes and a single overarching plot.) Pburka (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:Manual of Style/Titles: "Les Rougon-Macquart (actual title of the cycle of novels)". The James Bond series would have a possible connection to the first definition too, but it certainly falls into this second one as well. Given the weight that one part of the MoS suggests italicisation and one part states it categorically, I think we're fine with the italicisation here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Do any of the sources you've identified actually italicize James Bond in that context?" For the record:
 * Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories does not (as discussed below);
 * The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader does not (e.g., "James Bond novels" and "Bond novels" but "Casino Royale" and "From Russia With Love");
 * The Signs of James Bond: Semiotic Explorations in the World of 007 does not (e.g., "Ian Fleming's novels" and "James Bond novels" and "the Bond novels" but "Black's The Politics of James Bond" and "Goldfinger, Dr. No");
 * Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007 does not (e.g., "James Bond novels and films" and "Bond novels" and "Fleming's novels" but "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "''Thunderball");
 * Snobbery with violence: crime stories and their audience does not (e.g., "the Bond books" but "Fleming's On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and The James Bond Dossier");
 * Bond and beyond: the political career of a popular hero does not (e.g., "Fleming's Bond novels" and "the Bond novels" but "Le Chiffre in Casino Royale, and Red Grant in From Russia, With Love")
 * The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen does not (e.g., "Ian Fleming's novels" and "the Bond novels" but "Casino Royale" and "''Live and Let Die")
 * These are the only ones from the above list that I could preview on Google Books, but it shows that these sources:
 * refer to the series by various different terms, not consistently as "James Bond novels";
 * do not format the words "James Bond" (referring to the novel series) in the same way as they do the titles of books. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is a part of Article titles; it concerns the titles we give to Wikipedia articles, not the titles of other works. If you are relying on this in your reasoning, then it appears that we have a fundamental disagreement about the application of this guideline to begin with.

In any case, if the various sources you mention do not italicise the words "James Bond" when referring to the series (whereas the convention is to italicise the titles of works), this would support the view that "James Bond" is not a title of the series, although it is a common (but not universal) referrent—so Pburka's question whether those sources italicise it is relevant. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I note, for example, that the first book you reference, Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories, uses underscores in place of italics for titles of books, thus: However, "James Bond" is not similarly marked as a title, even when followed by the word "novels" in reference to the series: I don't think it's true then to say that "James Bond" is regarded as a title of the series as much as it serves as a descriptor for the novels and films featuring the character of that name. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "This book was written in 2002, which was the 50th anniversary of Ian Fleming's writing of Casino Royale, the first James Bond Adventure." (p. xix)
 * "Two highly recommended biographies of Ian Fleming are: The Life of Ian Fleming by John Pearson and Ian Fleming by Andrew Lycett." (p. xix–xx)
 * "Fleming wrote In Russia with Love in 1956, ..." (p. 2)
 * "But John Griswold has achieved it in his Concordance of names, phrases and time-lines from Ian Fleming's James Bond novels." (p. xi)
 * "Although there had been two or three critical analyses of Ian Fleming's marvelous oeuvre of James Bond novels published in the 1960s, ..." (p. xv)
 * "When Fleming wrote the James Bond novels, Baker Street was not a one-way street." (p. 22)
 * It matters not one fucking iota whether other sources italicise the names or not: they will work to different style guides to us, as you well know, and as I am sure you have probably used as an argument elsewhere – I know other self-appointed knee-jerk Guardians of the MoS have used it against me in the past. Your arguments that this isn't a title is unconvincing, and I do not think you are trying to come to a constructive end to this discussion, despite what you are claiming elsewhere. The many, many books I've listed show "James Bond" as the title of the series, and so it is. Time for you to accept that other people have a fucking clue what they are talking about from time to time, and for you to be disruptive elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm bowing out of this discussion. There's been a complete failure, from the very beginning, by SchroCat, to assume good faith. Everyone else has been generally polite, but SchroCat's personal attacks continue to escalate. I see no point in continuing. Pburka (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My AGF has broken down because of the complete nonsense that has been dished out from the beginning on this. Despite you and sroc saying "series titles are not italicised", the MoS says the exact bloody opposite. Is there any wonder, when I have wasted so much time and effort trying to point out your errors, that you still do not acknowledge that you have erred in your claims and may have - shock horror - made a mistake on this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just my tuppence: When we say the James Bond books, or the James Bond series, then the two words should be italicized to indicate to the readers that it is the name of the series, just like the Star Wars movies. Therefore, I agree with SchroCat.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I try to stay as neutral as I can on questions like this one, for many reasons ... it's a shame I had a tight Main Page deadline. For the rest of the discussion, please ignore my input above, if possible. We'll probably have another James Bond (or James Bond) book hitting the Main Page by the end of the year, and possibly much sooner. I think conciseness would benefit some of the arguments above, particularly for people who are trying to get up to speed on the arguments, so I'd like to invite people to offer a summary of their points in some new thread at WT:TFAC (if you're interested in the more limited question of what styling we should use the next time this hits the Main Page). Are people relatively happy with leaving the styling alone in this article and others until everyone has had a chance to have their say? I need two weeks myself before I can give the discussion the attention it deserves. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * SchroCat wrote: "Despite you and sroc saying 'series titles are not italicised' ..." Actually, what I wrote was: "I agree that the title of a book series or film series should be italicised ..."  You have claimed that I said the exact opposite of what I said—despite you having claimed that I misrepresented you.


 * SchroCat wrote: "The many, many books I've listed show 'James Bond' as the title of the series, and so it is." No, they don't.  "It matters not one fucking iota whether other sources italicise the names or not ..."  Yes, it does.  The fact that they (at least, the one I mentioned above  all those I could preview online ) do not format "James Bond" the same way as they do titles indicates that they do not use "James Bond" as the title of the series.  (If you can show that other publications format "James Bond" the same way they do other titles, then I may be persuaded.)  You may not understand this, or you may disagree with it, but that does not mean you're right and it does not make me disruptive or disingenuous for maintaining my view.  Your lack of assuming good faith, your unwillingness to consider contrary points of view, your outright dismissal of any view than your own, and your personal attacks laced with profanities are stifling productive discussion and consensus building.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 20:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC) [revised to reflect that I have checked additional titles, as noted above 18:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)]


 * I have struck my comment that you said series titles should not be italicised. Apologies, on re-reading I see it was only Pburka who repeated it so many times I thought it was you to.
 * We don't tend to rely on third party style guides (or so some have informed me before when it has suited them in a discussion), so I'll not bother getting into that minor point. What is rather clear is that the most commonly used name for the James Bond series of novels is James Bond (my italics). That use includes the use by the rights holders and all the official books released in their name. In the 1960s, when new paperback books were being released, the advertising blurb actually called the novel "The new James Bond", which is more than illustrative.
 * As to "Your lack of assuming good faith, your unwillingness to consider contrary points of view, your outright dismissal of any view than your own," if you combine that with ongoing tag teaming and wikilawyering then we have a pretty good outline of your approach. Perhaps if you could be a little less patronising, a little more flexible in your thinking and a little more stright in your discussions, then maybe we can close this off quickly: I'd rather not have to discuss this with you any further, as I have seen absolutey no AGF throughout.
 * @Dank, I'm not sure that opening a fourth thread on the same point would achieve much. There seems to be just one bone of contention here: whether James Bond is the "actual title of a cycle of novels". If it is, then the title is italicised. If hot then it should not be. I think I am right in summarising the situation, and I am sure sroc will correct me if I have misread where we now are. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your apology and correction. In fact, we frequently refer to third-party style guides on questions of style in writing MoS; I don't know who told you otherwise.  Just because others may refer to the series as "James Bond novels" (amongst other descriptors such as "Bond novels", "Fleming's novels", etc.) does not make them a title for the series (not everything has a title).  This is the point that we seem to disagree on—do we at least agree on that?
 * I think you'll find, if you step back and look over my comments, that I have assumed good faith (this doesn't mean I have to agree with your point of view). In stating my disagreement, I have given detailed reasons to explain and justify my view; I have tried to establish common ground and agreed with you on certain points (e.g., that series titles should be italicised); I've asked for clarification when there has been misunderstanding (e.g., when you accused me of misrepresenting you by claiming that you'd said something when I'd done no such thing); I've said "I'm open-minded on how this will end up, but yet to be persuaded. I'm sure SchroCat's intentions are genuine, as are mine"; and .  In return, you've accused me of "making up rules on the hoof"; called my rational arguments "nonsense", "rubbish", "an absurd lack of common sense", "tedious walls of bollocks"; demonstrated clear lack of assuming good faith with comments like "I doubt whether anything I am saying is making you open your mind at all"; and  describing it as "deceitful balls".  I'm sorry to see such incivil behaviour while I'm trying to stick to the issue and find some consensus (or at least identify the point of disagreement so that we can have a reasoned discussion about it).  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The fine words are all well and good, but when they are not matched by corresponding actions they mean nothing. When Pburka wrote, several times, that series titles do not carry italics, did you correct him, but point out your concern over the title? That would have been something that I would say shows AGF. But you didn't. Did you quote the relevant section of the MoS that confirms the italicisation of series titles? If you had been up front at the very beginning and said, "yes, you're right that series titles carry italics, but my opinion is that this isn't a series title", then we would have had this settled one way or the other a long time ago. You didn't, however. You wrote instead that "cases such as List of Star Wars books and Twilight (series) are based on existing works that feature the italicised words as the title", which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the actual title of a novel series should be italicised. There is so much more obfuscation than clarification in too many of your statements for me, so yes, when you write that such a minor point is "embarrassingly unprofessional", I will call it utter balls – and with some justification. (How many complaints were there on the Errors in the main page thread that day? Did you count them all?)
 * I'm sick of dealing with nonsense such as this – it's the sort of tedious and trite rubbish that drives editors away, and I'm going to step away while other people have a say, unless I see something truly misleading. I suggest you do the same, lest your "clarifications" confuse more than they enlighten. – SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I have not been as clear as I could have been from the beginning. I thought my early comments were clear enough:
 * "... the films and novels featuring the character James Bond almost never include his name in the title ..."
 * "... there is no title, James Bond, to base the italics convention on, so 'James Bond' should not be italicised ..."
 * "James Bond is not the name or title of a book or film. It may be the common name used to refer to a series of novels and/or films, but that does not make it a title that attracts italics."
 * I tried to make myself clearer as the discussion went on and it seemed that you were not understanding my view. I'm sorry if, in my doing this, you have seen this as "obfuscation".
 * Nonetheless, I do feel slighted that you have been incivil and not assumed that I am acting in good faith. It is particularly disappointing that you seem to be more interested in arguing about personal points about how the discussion has evolved rather than focus on the issue at hand.  For example, when I illustrated my view based on evidence that you referred to (by showing that the first of your sources does not format "James Bond" as a title), you dismiss this out of hand by saying "It matters not one fucking iota" and "Your arguments that this isn't a title is unconvincing, and I do not think you are trying to come to a constructive end to this discussion ..." without actually providing any reasoning to counter my view.  It is, of course, difficult to have a rational discussion—either for you to persuade me on your view or for me to respond to your view—when you won't focus on the issue.  I'm sorry it had to end this way.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except I have focussed on the issue as much as you have done. I won't waste time identifying the diffs where you have argued about personal points, but they are all above for thse who care enough to find them. I repeat that at no stage did your actions match your fine words, but there Iam sure we will again have to agree to disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it laughable that this subject has rumbled on for so long. Of course "James Bond" should be italicised! I fail to see sroc's point on this completely.   Cassianto Talk   08:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at that don't use "James Bond" as a title for the series, then look at  which says not to italicise descriptive titles for media franchises, then you might see my point.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except they do use them as a title, but will not necessarily work to the same MoS as us. We have a unique MoS, based on one US system, but bastardised to our own purposes ever since adoption. You cannot expect independent third parties to follow our logic: they will follow their own, differing methods. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't use them as a title. They format titles in italics, as is a common convention hardly unique to Wikipedia, but they don't italicise "James Bond" and they don't refer to the series consistently by that name, either.  They might sometimes call them the "James Bond novels" (amongst other names) but that doesn't make it a title of the series.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have your opinion on this, I have mine, and I note the sweeping generalisations you make in your statement. This really is going no-where, and I again suggest you step away and let third parties have their say, which is what I will be doing. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What "sweeping generalisations" have I made? I note you made the generalisation "the series title 'James Bond' is explicitly referred to as such by the following publications" but you didn't quote from any of those publications to support your claim;  (at least  out of the 12 you listed) show that they don't treat "James Bond" as a title and I quoted from those publications to support my view; you have not provided any counter-evidence, so I presume none of the other publications treat "James Bond" as a title either or you would have backed this up (and even if they did, they would be in the minority)—thus, your claim is invalidated based on the evidence.  You can have your own opinions but you can't make up your own facts in a bid to support them.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 12:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have mde up no facts, so you can stop the innuendo straight away. Your opinion on what third parties do or not do in regard to their MoS is noted, but you have not provided any evidence any similar formatting in regard to their use. Your presumptions mean nothing: they are not "evidence" in any way, shape or form, and are as much your opinion as anything else. I've suggested that you step away from this, as I intend to, but I will step back if you try and somehow paint your opinons, presumptions and thoughts as facts again. Once more: leave third parties to comment on this, or we will end up going round in every more pointless circles. The only thing I will add before I go is that the name James Bond is still used by Ian Fleming Publications as a series name, as it has been since the advertising copy of the 1950s. Note the wording on the top right of the Devil May Care book cover, and at the bottom of the Solo cover. As this is a form of wording used by IFP for several decades not used to refer to the character, but to the series, it's fairly clear what they consider the series title to be. – SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my remarks. Thank you for finally producing some evidence of two titles using "A James Bond novel" on the cover, which would support considering "James Bond" a title for a series containing Devil May Care by Sebastian Faulks and Solo by William Boyd.  What about all the other novels by Fleming that instead feature "Vintage 007" on the cover—wouldn't that indicate using "Vintage 007" or even "007" as the title of Fleming's series, not "James Bond"?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can at least make an attempt to be honest. I will repeat: I have made up no facts. Provide a diff to show otherwise. Immediately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the covers for Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, and so on. They all feature "007"—they don't feature the words "James Bond"—so, if anything, 007 would be the series title.  Or will you conveniently ignore this fact as well and push your own agenda?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop being so fucking obnoxious: I will repeat: I have made up no facts. Provide a diff to show otherwise. Immediately. I'm done here. You have been obstructive, inflexible and general awful to deal with throughout. You have now reached the stage of accusing me of making things up, which is a lie. Your behaviour is too despicable to have to deal with any longer and I see that you are the type of editor who will stoop to almost any depths to ensure they get their own way in an argument, even if it is not to the benefit of the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your incivility is noted. I have already quoted your claim and explained why it is false .  I have, in fact, been flexible, for example,  that "James Bond may be a valid title for some books in the series, but the evidence you put forth instead uses "007 for Fleming's books (as shown on their covers).  Since you continue to ignore logic and evidence which contradicts you (and try to claim that the evidence says something that it doesn't), there is no point arguing with you further.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your lies and incivility are also noted, and your reluctance to strike the untrue and baseless accusation above. The fact that you are happy to essentialy bully people off discussionsusing these tactics speaks volumes over the type of editor you are. And no, finally acknowledging that what I've been saying is exactly what the MoS says, is not a sign of flexibility. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you take a hike now and go and bother someone else. You, like many others on this project, are a complete waste of time; time which could be better spent creating articles.  Have you ever considered equalling the amount of time you've spent here on building up a stub?   Cassianto Talk   19:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you take a hike now and go and bother someone else. You, like many others on this project, are a complete waste of time; time which could be better spent creating articles.  Have you ever considered equalling the amount of time you've spent here on building up a stub?   Cassianto Talk   19:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The usage of "James Bond" here is akin to "List of Star Wars films" (which form a collection of media) rather than "List of Hitler biographies" (which are generally unconnected except for their subject matter). When italics are used in this way it indicates that the media form a single entity, and if the italics are dropped that implication is lost. Italicising the part of the title by which the media is commonly—and in this case eponymously—known is beneficical to readers since it is immediately obvious it is about a body of work rather than just media with a common subject matter. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Back to commenting on original issue

 * Not all incoming editors care to debate all the side-threads above, but are just here to respond to the central question.


 * It's "list of James Bond novels and short stories", not "list of James Bond novels and short stories"; there is no work titled James Bond for which the series is named; rather "James Bond" here is just a label for the series, the name of the main character. See this MOS discussion for more detail on why MOS is clear about this, and not likely to change on this point: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "there is no work titled James Bond for which the series is named": that is not the sole basis for naming a series, as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles makes very clear (the MoS is very clear on this, which is why it clearly states we italicise the "actual title of the cycle of novels". That's the reason we have A Series of Unfortunate Events, despite there being no book under that name. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe this comes down to context. If you are using "James Bond" to refer to the series of films/books/franchise etc then it should be italicised. If you don't then we lose consistency at articles such as List of film series with more than twenty entries if some "titles" are italicised and some not. I think it is besides the point if the title is a formal name encapsulated by the work itself; if we are using a phrase as a "title" to refer to a series of works then to all intents and purposes it is being used as a title and should be styled as such. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, SchroCat, there are cases where the author/producer has explicitly given a serial work an overarching title, as in the Series of Unfortunate Events case, and agreed that MOS accounts for this. The James Bond novels and films are not such a case. They're not even consistent.  The main series of Bond films we're all probably familiar with are actually trademark identified as the 007 films (an attempt to trademark "James Bond" failed, as I recall). Those not part of this series (e.g., the original Casino Royale film, the comedy by the same name that followed it, and Never Say Never Again) are not 007 films but they are James Bond films. "James Bond films" is doubly wrong, because noy only is there no source for the idea that the main series is formally titled this, the films are not even in one series!  The key point, though, is that we have no reliable source that the main series original producer Albert R. Broccoli or any of his successors (or the production company, or anyone else) has formally, explicitly given these films the  of James Bond (or 007) as a combined work. I even have the complete Blu-ray box set of them, and it is not titled James Bond or 007. We  have reliable sources that The Fellowship of the Rings, The Two Towers and The Return of the King were formally, explicitly titled The Lord of the Rings as a combined work by author J.R.R. Tolkien. That's really all there is to it.  What's wrong with "the Harry Potter novels" is that Harry Potter is not the title of these novels as a combined work; it's simply a label, the main character's name. (If we wanted to be really obtuse and label them in reference to the shared part of the title, we could call them "the Harry Potter and... series", but that would be, well, kind of crappy. This format has been used from time to time in reference to various series, but it's a style that's fallen very much out of use since ca. the 1970s.) Thus we have Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat series, but Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series. Azimov's Foundation series could be written either with or without the italics, depending upon whether you consider it named for the organization central to the stories, or for the first novel in the series, Foundation; we've chosen the latter, and that's fine.  These labels aren't always even capitalized, e.g. "William Gibson's cyberpunk series", a purely descriptive label for his Sprawl trilogy and Bridge trilogy collectively (and note these are not "Sprawl trilogy" much less "Sprawl Trilogy" or "Sprawl Trilogy"). Re: Betty Logan's If you are using "James Bond" to refer to the series of films/books/franchise etc then it should be italicised. – There's no basis for that, and MOS does not support that interpretation. Nor does any preponderance of off-WP sources, whether you consider style guides or actual observed usage, both of which are wildly inconsistent. WP has elected not to be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)  PS: A franchise (in the media sense used here) is simply a trademark that happens to apply to some published works in one medium or another (often several). We don't italicize trademarks as such.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you hae gone into such detail about the films. This article is about the book series, not the films, so a large chunk of what you have written has nothing to do with the matter in hand: what on earth does Broccoli have to do with the books, for goodness sake? - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I already directly quoted what I'm responding to, and I do it again here, with emphasis added so you notice this time: If you are using "James Bond" to refer to the series of /books/franchise etc then it should be italicised. And I already explained why this applies to the book series, but I'll do it again in simpler terms and in the form of a demand, under WP:V policy: Prove with reliable sources that Iam Fleming declared James Bond the actual, formal title for his spy novels as collective work. No proof? Then we're done here. Don't like this tone? Don't snap at other editors with stuff like "I have no idea why..." and "for goodness sake" and you'll be less likely to get a snippy response back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries of "Reading comprehension problems?", and the tone of your comment above are snarky - and yes, uncivil, so perhaps you could remove your head from wherever it is and try and act like someone being constructive? This is about books, and if you waste people's time bleating on about films, then yes, people are going to ask why you are moving the conversation further away from anything helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ballantine Books
I have, for the second time, had to remove a number of additions to the list. These are not officially recognised Bond works, and were not licenced by Ian Fleming Publications. The list we currently have on this page covers official works only, not fan fiction or ephemera. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the "Find Your Fate" books? I'm pretty certain they were approved because they were all based upon A View to a Kill and were licensed spin-offs. That said, I agree it's not appropriate to consider them to as novels. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bond On The Rocks
"Bond On The Rocks" is an unofficial Bond novel,by Curtis Cook, released this year 2016. Could someone place this novel in the list on the website here. Here's a link to a website where this novel is mentioned: www.thebookbond.com/search/label/Unofficial.
 * Please sign your comments. Only official Bond novels are listed here. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Moneypenny Diaries
Shouldn't the Moneypenny novels be included? As I understand it Bond appears in them. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of James Bond novels and short stories. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227092157/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=145 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=145
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014031316/http://www.ianfleming.com/new-young-bond-series-in-2014/ to http://www.ianfleming.com/new-young-bond-series-in-2014/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of James Bond novels and short stories. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310072209/http://www.ianfleming.com/the-books/live-and-let-die/ to http://www.ianfleming.com/the-books/live-and-let-die/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310072505/http://www.ianfleming.com/books/bond-books/john-pearson/ to http://www.ianfleming.com/books/bond-books/John-Pearson/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310073339/http://www.ianfleming.com/books/bond-books/christopher-wood/ to http://www.ianfleming.com/books/bond-books/christopher-wood/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116054224/http://www.ianfleming.com/books/bond-books/john-gardner-1926-2007/ to http://www.ianfleming.com/books/bond-books/john-gardner-1926-2007/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203111458/http://www.ianfleming.com/trigger-mortis-international-publication-today/ to http://www.ianfleming.com/trigger-mortis-international-publication-today/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715130205/http://www.penguin007.com/ to http://www.penguin007.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of James Bond novels and short stories. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116043304/http://www.raymondbenson.com/biography/ to http://www.raymondbenson.com/biography/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Additions
I have made 2 additions of note to this article: 1. Updated with news source to reflect the newly announced Horowitz novel that comes out in May; 2. Added reference to The Moneypenny Diaries as this was an officially sanctioned spin-off just as with Young Bond. I did not include a table, though, in case the idea is to only include novels in which Bond appears (though I do believe he appears in the Diaries); instead, I linked to the Wikipedia article on that series. Neither addition I believe should have a bearing on the gold-star status of the article. 96.51.188.175 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Table
Can you widen the plot column? Make it at least 50% of the total width. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.89.255 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Forever and a Day article missing/needed
The link to Forever and a Day is redirecting to Anthony Horowitz. Since all the other Bond novels have their own articles, this one should too. I haven't read it yet (only got it at Christmas) so I can't help yet. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)