Talk:Osbert Sitwell

Naming

See From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

Therefore this articles name should be changed.--Ginggangsgoolies 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comments

"The Sitwell family owned a large amount of land in South Yorkshire, in the town of Rotherham in which I was raised. There were several streets named after members of the family for example, Osbert Road, Reresby Crescent, which were within a 5 minute walk of the house in which I lived. Possibly the most significant connection to the family was the golf course that was named, Sitwell Park Golf Club, at which I played as a teenager. That was about a 10 minute walk from the house. Looking at the course using Google Earth, it looks very much like it did in the 1950's."

I did not write the above comment paragraph. I moved it to the talk-page since it wasn't appropriate to the main article. Patrick925 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to Osbert Sitwell: Discussion

The following is a closed 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 move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I propose this move on the grounds that Osbert Sitwell is far better known by his name than by his full title. Deb (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - he is.HeartofaDog (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sufficiently so that my local library redirects from his full style to Sitwell, Osbert, 1892-1969. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Rat Week

I have come across a published version of Rat Week which shows that that the poem was not at all sympathetic to the Windsors; quite the contrary. I have added it to the article's references and will edit the article to incorporate the book. I will also rearrange it somewhat as the section on his baronetcy contains rather a miscellany, including some items that belong under the section on his works. Exbrum (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now done. I missed out the reference to a copy of Rat Week being held at Eton as it is uncited. I hope someone can provide a citation and reinstate this plus explain whether the Eton copy is one of the original versions circulated by Sitwell or the Cavalcade censored version. Exbrum (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Image available

An image has been uploaded of Sitwell to Commons: File:Osbert Sitwell in The Bookman volume 57 December 1919 p. 102.jpg Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional bibliography entry?

I am new to this so do not know if correct to add this:

Introduction to Bleak House by Charles Dickens, The Oxford Illustrated Dickens. Undated but probably for 1948 first printing, at that time called The New Oxford Illustrated Dickens. Pfdubois (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Revisions of Triple Fugue?

The question I'm trying to research today involves the story "Triple Fugue" from a Penguin reprint of the same name. There are five other character studies besides the title story, and the same story is also reprinted in Collected Stories. On page 153 it says the wedding takes place in 1948, but the original copyright was 1924, the first Penguin edition was in 1940, and this edition is supposed to be a reprint in 1948. From internal details within the story, 1948 seems rather unlikely, but barely possible if all of the characters are extremely old-fashioned. I think a typo from 1848 is quite impossible, though a typo from 1918 could be a possibility... Or maybe the publisher just tweaked the year to make it seem fresher? Yours in puzzlement, Shanen (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I should probably delete the previous part, but maybe my solution to the puzzle isn't correct? Now I think there were no revisions, but it was actually a kind of science fiction story, and the year 1948 was just a weird coincidence that matched the year of the reprint. SF wasn't a clearly defined genre when this story was written, but the last long story (of the title) was actually a character sketch of some imaginary characters in an imaginary future, but cleverly and even imaginatively linked to the real world of 1924. For example, the story mentions a book about a great war by Winston Churchill, but it's an alternative universe where there were apparently two more great wars before 1948. I finally conclude that the final story was mostly humorous, which called for regarding the rest of the stories as humor, too. Shanen (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of Sitwell.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)