Talk:James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/3115-1.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120233347/http://commanderbond.net/article/4647 to http://commanderbond.net/article/4647
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://web.mac.com/zencato/iWeb/Young_Bond/News/12CC877B-3CD9-45DB-B95E-5233DC472385.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical Status Debate

The long paragraph debating the canonicity of this book ought to be moved out of the lead section, to its own section somewhere in the main body. Also, reworded, because it's too much of a run-on sentence bridging several obscure concepts. Maybe say less, but word it better. Also: citations.

As a frequenter of online BondForums, I am well aware of the canonicity debate of this book, and all other postFleming materials, and it is a fun debate. But unfortunately I don't think we can cite an online fanforum to prove the existence of a fan debate. Paradoxical, I know. And I doubt there's any published scholarly text covering this question, but if there is, then we should cite it.

J Edward Malone (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]