Talk:John Gardner (British writer)

Nicely done

Nicely done, MK!Hayford Peirce 21:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article title

I'm far from crazy about the article title, and would change it to John Gardner (Bond author) if the text didn't make it clear the author would be uncomfortable with that designation. But his preference is not relevant; what is relevant is whether he has succeeded in making at least as much of a name for himself in his non-Bond writing. I

• have never heard of "Boysie Oakes" or his post-Bond character,
• respond to "John Gardner" with "there's a Grendel one and a James Bond one; are they two people?", and
• might be able to come up with "Gardner" when asked "who else writes Bond novels?"

I don't know whether i'm typical or not. I'm sure the author or the article is not typical, and unless there are people who could not have written the article but find "(creator of Boysie Oakes)" a useful means of dab, it's a bad title.
I assume the editor chose to append a dab qualifier to the Brit rather than the Yank bcz of the Brit's lesser serious-author rep. I'm not sure whether the Yank's serious rep is greater than the Brit's pop-culture (Bond) one. Might John Gardner (Grendel) be the best means of dab?
--Jerzy(t) 13:09, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Well, I dunno who or what Grendel is, so that certainly would be useless for me as an article heading. I'm vaguely aware of the fact that Gardner wrote some Bond books but (once again, for me) that was a distinct step down. When I first wrote this article I was just trying to get some way of directing the reader to the Boysie Oakes creator. I didn't know much about WP tricks at the time and today I might have done it differently. Since I used to be a BO fan, and still at least own all the books, I'd prefer that things remain as they are. But if, as you say, the casual reader only knows him as a Bond writer, I suppose I can't argue too much about it, like Doyle wanting to be listed for his books about psychic research, mebbe. Just as long as there are adequate links to Boysie and his creator.... Hayford Peirce 15:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gosh, i managed to be obscure, i think. The answer is "Yes, they are different people"; hence in the reference to Grendel, i was trying to imply the possibility of the Brit becoming just John Gardner, and the Yank becoming John Gardner (Grendel), since he is the author of Grendel, a novel retelling Beowulf from the PoV of the monster.
I don't claim, either, to be an average reader; i don't think Gardner's Grendel is that widely read (i.e., my doing so probably makes me odd), and i had frequent occasion for a while to walk past a display of Gardner's Bond tales (i.e., paying atttention in doing so probably makes me odd).
In any case, i'm not looking for any quick resolution, but rather just wanted to get the question down where others could put in their oar as appropriate.
Tnx --Jerzy(t) 07:42, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Oh, okay, now I gotcha. I think what you propose is perfect. When I added the (creator of BO) to the John Gardner entry it was just a way of distinguishing them and I couldn't think of any other way to do so. Now it's a situation of creating a new article, I think, or maybe two of them, and moving the original contents of the two old article into them, them setting up Redirects, and then maybe asking that the original articles be deleted. Or so I would imagine. Is this correct? If so, I will be happy to let you do it, hehe.... Best, Hayford Peirce 15:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in -- I really don't like John Gardner (creator of Boysie Oakes) as a dab, and I wouldn't be much happier with John Gardner (James Bond author) or similar; what about something more generic, like John Gardner (thriller writer)? --Paul A 02:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. As I said above, I think, when I started this article I didn't know much about how to deal with WP subtleties. Today I would have probably done it differently. Since Gardner is obviously more than just a B.O. or Bond writer calling him a thriller writer would be fine. But I leave it to someone else to do the fix-ups and redirects etc.... Hayford Peirce 04:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Paul A 01:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Looks to me as if you've done a great job on the switcheroo and all the links! It's definitely an improvement....

• I wish that the "fair use" definition is so unclear -- I'd love to scan a B.O. cover or part thereof and stick it in as an illustration, but I get different interpretations from different sycops here.... Hayford Peirce 05:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

File:John Gardner.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:John Gardner.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What year Fleming estate hired Gardner

This is a contentious point. The Orion 2011 edition of Licence Renewed says on the back flap that Glidrose hired Gardner in 1981. This clearly isn't so. In a piece Gardner himself wrote he says 1980: In 1980, while I was living in Ireland I received a challenge out of the blue. Would I be prepared to write a James Bond continuation novel? Glidrose, the literary copyright holders in Ian Fleming approached me... [1]. Elsewhere Gardner narrows it down to Autumn 1980: In the Autumn of 1980... [2]. This is demonstrably untrue. In October 1980, Gardner gave a syndicated interview printed in newspapers worldwide. He said that he had already finished writing the book (Meltdown) [3]. Gardner has consistently said over the years that he was approached in the autumn. If true – and he hasn't confused autumn and spring, then it must have been autumn 1979. I do remember interviews he gave in 1981 to the London Times – no link unfortunately – where he said the Fleming estate approached him in 1979. There is also this link, though I concede it's not a reliable source on its own: In 1979, Gardner, living in Ireland, received a letter from well-known crime reviewer and author HRF Keating, asking him if he would be interested in picking up where Ian Fleming had left off and continuing with the James Bond series. Supplying Glidrose with four narrative outlines, one was chosen. More reliable is the Twentieth-Century Crime and Mystery Writers ed. Lesley Henderson. Chicago and London: St. James Press. 1991 (third edition); it says on p.418, In 1979 Gardner was chosen from a secret short-list of six to continue Ian Fleming's James Bond saga[.] --Fanthrillers (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine: as long as we have a firm reference for it, then all is good. I 'm going to have a look over this for a day or so and then maybe see if it'll pass through a GA process. It's a little thin, but there isn't a huge amount of information on him - I'll see if I can squeeze anything out of the obits which may add a little more colour to him. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Gardner (British writer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This was very long in the queue. Time to review it.--Kürbis (✔) 20:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   " and Lena Henderson a local Geordie girl" - and Lena..., a local ...

   "Theology" -> theology

   In the lead it says he lost his faith, but it is not mentioned in the subsequent sections.

   "and reviewing the novel in The New York Times, Anthony Boucher wrote, "Mr. Gardner succeeds in having it both ways: " Split from the sentence and start with, eg, "Upon reviewing the novel...."

   That's all

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Hold--Kürbis (✔) 09:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

• Note I reverted this edit, as it introduced a strange error in the left sidebar. Hope you don't mind. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I reinserted this reference and now it is ok. Not sure what caused this error... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi GOP, the three tweaks are done, as is the 'loss of faith' information, including a supporting citation. Many thanks for your time and your thoughts on this: it's much appreciated! Please let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to do. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your changes. I will pass this article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers GOP/Kürbis: your efforts are hugely appreciated and I'm very glad that your retirement was only temporary—the project desperately needs to keep people like you on board! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Gardner (British writer). 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/20101227071253/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=176 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=176

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

'Casually driven' (better phrase needed)

He collapsed while shopping in Basingstoke; he was later casually driven to hospital, where he died.

Not only does it need a citation, which has already been called for, but it needs stating in better English. To me (British English) 'casually driven' suggests he was taken to hospital in a way not recommended by medical advice, or that he was taken in a sloppily crewed ambulance.Cloptonson (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GA concerns

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the GA criteria. My concerns are listed below:

• There is an orange banner "more citations needed" banner that has been in the article since 2019.
• The entire "Death" section is uncited
• I think the lede could be expanded upon to highlight more of his accomplishments.

Is anyone willing to fix up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

John Gardner (British writer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

An "additional citations needed" banner has been present since 2019 for his works. The "Death" section is uncited, and the lede could be expanded and reformatted into two paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? Fifteen minutes to add the citations is a little easier than the whole GAR thing. The lead could be expanded, but it currently contains the core information, and anything added would be adding just for the sake of adding, which doesn't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now done this. It might be a bit long, but honestly I think that's mainly because the article itself is a little sparse: I would advise editors thinking that it is overweight to look at expanding the body rather than cutting it by too much. I know almost nothing about Gardner except what is in the article and easily accessible in its sources, so please read it accordingly! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep looks fine, I do wonder if the article can be expanded with more sources, but I'm not willing to look for them at this time. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.