Talk:Bourne (novel series)

Novels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be renamed to Bourne (film series) to bring it inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. Let's discuss. - LA @ 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Please state whether or not you support the renaming of this article.

Oppose - This is a disambiguation page, and deals with the trilogy of books, as well as the film series, both collectively known as the Bourne trilogy. — WiseKwai 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bourne Trilogy

This page only lists 3 novels when there are 9 listed on the Jason Bourne page. I know this page is titled 'Bourne Trilogy', indicating 3, but perhaps it should be moved to a page called 'Bourne Series'. Or maybe a whole new page should be created. Bradj47 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BradJ47 (talk • contribs)

Agree, this page should moved to the The Bourne Series and then expanded into a wider article (that could be done by merging this page with Bourne (film series). Charles Essie (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the pages should be merged or expanded into a "wider article". For instance, the film series page can remain but maybe there is a master page for the entire franchise (such as "Bourne (franchise)"). I've seen pages like this for James Bond, Star Trek, and other large media franchises. –TFunk (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's logical to have the pages merged. Visitors, in all likelihood searching for one, will naturally be interested in the other. Combined identity makes better reading sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.72.88.130 (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the expression "trilogy" has little meaning since the release of the subsequent novels and film/s –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 11:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there should be a Bourne franchise article. (and a novel series article) separate from the film series article -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be a book series article and a movie series article. Also, as it is, Bourne series is a redirect to Bourne Trilogy.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  14:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, separate articles for film franchise and book series seems logical; and both need also to be related. Regards, DPdH (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above: 1 article for the book series, another for the film series, and another listing the two ;). Happy-marmotte 12:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-marmotte (talk • contribs)

Disagree, if the question is as it is stated on the article page, namely "It has been suggested that Bourne_(film_series) be merged with Bourne_Trilogy". The only things that the films and the books have in common are the names of some of the characters and the titles. The Bourne film series is not a film version of the book series. Only the first film shows a vague similarity to the overall concept of the first book, but the second and third films do not, despite confusingly having the same titles as the books. The books and the films are related, of course, but the films are not a filmed version of the books. -- leuce (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rename to Bourne Series. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne Trilogy → The Bourne Series – This is not a trilogy anymore, it hasn't been one since The Bourne Legacy (novel) was released in 2004! Charles Essie (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous discussion of this issue above. — AjaxSmack 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which previous discussion? Charles Essie (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why "The"? -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not set on The Bourne Series, but the current title simply must go! This is not a fucking trilogy anymore! Charles Essie (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move to Bourne Series - drop the THE, as per WP:DEFINITE "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name". --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is no longer a trilogy. However there could be a sub section on "The Bourne Series" about Robert Ludlum's original trilogy. Also, does the title of this article have to include the word "The". Couldn't it just be "Bourne Series"? I'll support either though. IJA (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Bourne (series) or Bourne (film series)? Unreal7 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move, but keep "Bourne Trilogy" as a section of the article to indicate its significance as the original Robert Ludlum trilogy. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 September 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Bourne (novel series). Cúchullain ^t/c 20:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne Series → Bourne (series) – Standard capitalization. "Series" is not part of the trademark. Also consistency with Bourne (film series). – Mika1h (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this appears to be the series article for the novel series, so Bourne (novel series) per Bourne (film series). "Bourne series" and Bourne (series) should redirect to Bourne franchise -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what 70.51.201.202 said, word-for-word. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.