This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
P. G. Wodehouse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
P. G. Wodehouse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 15, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 15, 2019. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have: IPA /ˈwʊdhaʊs/ and respelling "WOOD-howss". IPA has a /ʊ/ as in "push"; respelling has "oo" as in "boot". The "correct" respelling, according to the key, would be "WUUD-howss". I'm not making that change because, of course, the English word "wood" is in fact pronounced /wʊd/. But by that logic, the most helpful respelling might be "WOOD-house". Maybe the answer is change "OO" to "UU"; maybe the answer is to remove the link to the respelling key. -- Bobagem ( talk) 20:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Some largely stylistic changes I made to the section "Hollywood: 1929–1931" were reverted by Tim Riley. I thought they were improvements but Riley thought not and said he was changing back to the "agreed FA version." I'm not sure what that means or who "agreed" to it (do some editors get a veto on textual edits?), but I think the current version is harder to follow, so I'm explaining my changes here to see if I'm alone in thinking this.
I changed "In a 2005 study of Wodehouse in Hollywood, Brian Taves writes that" to ". . . Taves wrote that" — using the present tense in a sentence that begins with the date of a 17-year-old article read oddly to me.
I also changed this paragraph:
Wodehouse's contract ended after a year and was not renewed. At MGM's request, he gave an interview to The Los Angeles Times. Wodehouse was described by Herbert Warren Wind as "politically naive [and] fundamentally unworldly", and he caused a sensation by saying publicly what he had already told his friends privately about Hollywood's inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, and waste of expensive talent. The interview was reprinted in The New York Times, and there was much editorial comment about the state of the film industry.
to:
Wodehouse's contract ended after a year and was not renewed. At MGM's request, he gave an interview to The Los Angeles Times, in which he caused a sensation by saying publicly what he had already told his friends privately about Hollywood's inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, and waste of expensive talent. Wodehouse, who biographer Herbert Warren Wind described as "politically naive [and] fundamentally unworldly", did not realize the effect his comments would have. The interview was reprinted in The New York Times, and newspaper editorials used it to criticise the state of the film industry.
(Rereading I'd now also swap the last two sentences.)
In the current version, the sentence on Herbert Wind is confusing as the first half has no obvious relation to the previous sentence, about the interview. It isn't clear whether Wind was a writer for the LA Times or whether the quote refers to anything specific Wodehouse did. And the phrase "there was much editorial comment" reads like a bad newspaper article from 1907. ("There was much comment among the chattering classes on the subject of Lady Asquith's new hat.") I realise the article is about an early twentieth century writer, but there's no need for it to read like a schoolboy parody of Edwardian prose. It's also vague. Don't say "there was much editorial comment". Say what the editorial comment was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.249.115.55 ( talk • contribs)
Yesterday I spent about 15 minutes trying to find information about Wodehouse's wife (the only thing I was interested in at the time) in his long detailed article. I knew the information would be easier to find in a clearly titled separate section, so moved information about Wodehouse's wife and adopted daughter into a new Marriage section. This morning I find that you have reverted my edit. I will not get into an edit war and will never edit the Wodehouse article again, but I found it a difficult article to find information about his family. If you feel chronological is best so be it, but it is not helpful to someone who already knows the gist of Wodehouse's career, but wants specific information. Karenthewriter ( talk) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently tried to add a short additional and fully referenced fact to the 'Reluctant banker; budding writer: 1900–1908', section of this article but it was rapidly reverted. Therefore, please could I kindly ask one of the regular contributors/editors to kindly consider the paragraph below, and consider whether there is any merit in making some reference to this literary collaboration within the main P.G. Wodehouse article. Many thanks.
"Between December 1903 and January 1907, Robinson (‘Bobbles’) and his friend, P. G. Wodehouse (‘Plum’), co-wrote four playlets that were published in three different periodicals. Each playlet is written in the style of a pantomime and they parody the debate within Edwardian era Britain surrounding the Tariff Reform League and proposed changes to tax law. During July 2009, these playlets were compiled and republished in facsimile form by Paul Spiring in a book titled Bobbles & Plum. This book also features an introduction by the prominent Wodehouse scholars, Lieutenant-Colonel Norman Murphy and Tony Ring, and text annotations by W.S. Gilbert scholar, Andrew Crowther."
Accompanying references: [1] [2] [3] [4] 82.38.214.91 ( talk) 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
P. G. Wodehouse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
P. G. Wodehouse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 15, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 15, 2019. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have: IPA /ˈwʊdhaʊs/ and respelling "WOOD-howss". IPA has a /ʊ/ as in "push"; respelling has "oo" as in "boot". The "correct" respelling, according to the key, would be "WUUD-howss". I'm not making that change because, of course, the English word "wood" is in fact pronounced /wʊd/. But by that logic, the most helpful respelling might be "WOOD-house". Maybe the answer is change "OO" to "UU"; maybe the answer is to remove the link to the respelling key. -- Bobagem ( talk) 20:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Some largely stylistic changes I made to the section "Hollywood: 1929–1931" were reverted by Tim Riley. I thought they were improvements but Riley thought not and said he was changing back to the "agreed FA version." I'm not sure what that means or who "agreed" to it (do some editors get a veto on textual edits?), but I think the current version is harder to follow, so I'm explaining my changes here to see if I'm alone in thinking this.
I changed "In a 2005 study of Wodehouse in Hollywood, Brian Taves writes that" to ". . . Taves wrote that" — using the present tense in a sentence that begins with the date of a 17-year-old article read oddly to me.
I also changed this paragraph:
Wodehouse's contract ended after a year and was not renewed. At MGM's request, he gave an interview to The Los Angeles Times. Wodehouse was described by Herbert Warren Wind as "politically naive [and] fundamentally unworldly", and he caused a sensation by saying publicly what he had already told his friends privately about Hollywood's inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, and waste of expensive talent. The interview was reprinted in The New York Times, and there was much editorial comment about the state of the film industry.
to:
Wodehouse's contract ended after a year and was not renewed. At MGM's request, he gave an interview to The Los Angeles Times, in which he caused a sensation by saying publicly what he had already told his friends privately about Hollywood's inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, and waste of expensive talent. Wodehouse, who biographer Herbert Warren Wind described as "politically naive [and] fundamentally unworldly", did not realize the effect his comments would have. The interview was reprinted in The New York Times, and newspaper editorials used it to criticise the state of the film industry.
(Rereading I'd now also swap the last two sentences.)
In the current version, the sentence on Herbert Wind is confusing as the first half has no obvious relation to the previous sentence, about the interview. It isn't clear whether Wind was a writer for the LA Times or whether the quote refers to anything specific Wodehouse did. And the phrase "there was much editorial comment" reads like a bad newspaper article from 1907. ("There was much comment among the chattering classes on the subject of Lady Asquith's new hat.") I realise the article is about an early twentieth century writer, but there's no need for it to read like a schoolboy parody of Edwardian prose. It's also vague. Don't say "there was much editorial comment". Say what the editorial comment was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.249.115.55 ( talk • contribs)
Yesterday I spent about 15 minutes trying to find information about Wodehouse's wife (the only thing I was interested in at the time) in his long detailed article. I knew the information would be easier to find in a clearly titled separate section, so moved information about Wodehouse's wife and adopted daughter into a new Marriage section. This morning I find that you have reverted my edit. I will not get into an edit war and will never edit the Wodehouse article again, but I found it a difficult article to find information about his family. If you feel chronological is best so be it, but it is not helpful to someone who already knows the gist of Wodehouse's career, but wants specific information. Karenthewriter ( talk) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently tried to add a short additional and fully referenced fact to the 'Reluctant banker; budding writer: 1900–1908', section of this article but it was rapidly reverted. Therefore, please could I kindly ask one of the regular contributors/editors to kindly consider the paragraph below, and consider whether there is any merit in making some reference to this literary collaboration within the main P.G. Wodehouse article. Many thanks.
"Between December 1903 and January 1907, Robinson (‘Bobbles’) and his friend, P. G. Wodehouse (‘Plum’), co-wrote four playlets that were published in three different periodicals. Each playlet is written in the style of a pantomime and they parody the debate within Edwardian era Britain surrounding the Tariff Reform League and proposed changes to tax law. During July 2009, these playlets were compiled and republished in facsimile form by Paul Spiring in a book titled Bobbles & Plum. This book also features an introduction by the prominent Wodehouse scholars, Lieutenant-Colonel Norman Murphy and Tony Ring, and text annotations by W.S. Gilbert scholar, Andrew Crowther."
Accompanying references: [1] [2] [3] [4] 82.38.214.91 ( talk) 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|