Talk:P. G. Wodehouse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Info-box

At the recent PR it has been suggested that the list of pen-names in the box should be moved to the main body of the text, leaving a pretty empty box that is surplus to requirements. I would support such a move. Comments pro or con from all interested editors are cordially invited. Tim riley talk 20:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal - Tim, I agree. The pen-names should be removed and as you correctly predict, the box would look redundant and ridiculous. I say remove it entirely. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal. I also support this. Wodehouse did not write any of his important works under the pen names anyhow, and the rest of the information is redundant and takes up valuable space at the top of this well-illustrated article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal—I see no reason in having it if it does not give any information that the lead does not. As far as I can see the only thing we now have in the infobox that is not in the lead directly alongside is the place of death (Southampton, NY, US). I would recommend putting the place of death into the lead (probably at the end of the third paragraph; "He died in 1975, aged 93, in Southampton, New York" or similar) and doing away with the box. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal The article is well supported by well written - even elegant - prose; an infobox would have to be full of interesting bits and pieces. This one is sadly lacking such information. Scr★pIron^IV 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal I was in two minds over this recently, but on reflecting over the point for the last week or so, I think we're probably better off with without it. Partly my decision was swayed by my removing the pen names form the box. These names were only ever used in minor pieces (as far as I can tell not on any of his books) and are unknown to all but a very tiny proportion of his readers, so more questions are raised than answered by putting them into such a prominent position. What is left is in the lead, and it is easily findable to anyone who spend more than a few seconds of their time looking for it. – SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal I didn't say anything during the peer review about it as thought it was the preference of the writers. I could accept it as it is, but whatever you think looks best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I say! Never knew such unanimity in all my life! Despite which, I think we ought to leave this thread unactioned for a day or so to allow time for anyone who demurs to add his or her voice. Tim riley talk 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Box duly removed. Tim riley talk 07:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I read this page after adding infobox writer. The article looked bare without it to me. I like the quick summary of the infobox. I read the article for the first time a day or so ago, as text in another article mentioned Wodehouse, so I wanted the link to be correct. Today I came back to add the box, and read the article more thoroughly. I did not put in anything that seemed controversial, like a list of his best-known characters or anyone's favorite novel. Just pulled together that nice list of facts that shows life time, type of writing, citizenship. If that gets anyone upset, you can undo it in one go. He is a writer I like a lot, but I read his books mainly before Wikipedia existed, so I never thought to read this article before now, when editing the article on Portuguese Irregular Verbs, a book by Alexander McCall Smith. It is an excellent article on Wodehouse, by the way. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the infobox?

Why isn't there a infobox - telling you how old he was when he died, where he was born and buried, wife and family. Is there some esoteric reason why I have to read a whole article to pick out important little facts that are sprinkled through the entire piece? The point of an infobox is it contains the bullet points of a person's life. This is particularly important if this articled is viewed on a smartphone. You don't want to have scroll through to get the basics.

Why have infoboxes if they're not going to be used? The point of them is to act as a precis to the whole article.

The fact that this is a featured article - and there is no infobox - only proves to me once again that wikipedia is just bunch of clans bitching about who controls the knowledge. It's not engagement through the proliferation of information. 86.140.78.164 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have tried to edit the article (or just view the source), you may have seen the hidden note which says this: "A consensus exists not to have an infobox – see Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#Info-box – so please do not put an infobox without seeking to change that consensus on the talk page." So that looks to me like reasonable agreement and fair compromise rather than "just bunch of clans bitching about who controls the knowledge." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Poor style

How can this be a featured article, when in the opening paragraph the word ‘loquacious’ is employed three times in the same sentence? — Muckapedia (talk) 31^e mai 2016 0h09 (−4h)

You're absolutely right. This clumsy wording was added earlier this year in a drive-by edit. Now reverted. Tim riley talk 07:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There don't seem to be a lot of citations in the opening paragraphs. In particular, this sentence does not seem to fit with the wikipedia standards...it reads as salesy and would not help someone understand the topic:

" with tall tales on subjects ranging from bibulous bishops to megalomaniac movie moguls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:B:0:0:0:440 (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Poor Bertie

I think the article lead's description of "the feather-brained Bertie Wooster" is a bit harsh. He is, after all, the narrator of all that brilliance. No person I'd describe as feather-brained could possibly write like that, and besides, readers generally would agree with his assessments of things. Surely he would be better described as merely hapless or frivolous or quandary-prone or something less easily interpreted as lacking in general intelligence.--45.72.141.216 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Pull-quote from Times

This article has a lot of pull-quotes - quotes separated from the text in colored boxes. It's got eight of them! While this can be an effective technique it shoudl be used sparingly, largely because it makes it harder to scroll through articles, especially on mobile devices. See [[1]]

I believe a pull-quote of praise from a Times editorial in the 1930's section should be removed - in fact, I did remove it, but it has been returned. It's an uninteresting bit of praise that adds nothing: the article already makes it clear that institutions and people praised him. We don't need to break up the text to add this example. I suspect it's there because an editor thinks it looks better to have some piece of "art" in every section, but that's a magazine-layout idea that doesn't apply to wikipedia.

I'd like to remove it again, but rather than get into a back-and-edit edit kerfuffle, does anybody else have an opinion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove--there are plenty of quotes so keep the most important, notable and compelling. --Jaldous1 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly they are not pull quotes in the correct use of the term. Secondly they are there for a reason (more than one, actually), so please don't second guess why you think an editor has decided to put quotes in—you are quite wide of the mark. Given the length of the article, eight is not "overuse" - all were there when the article went through PR and FAC three years ago, and without complaint. We don't write solely for mobile devices (although when I look at this on a tablet I get no interference from the boxes), although others' mileage may vary; de gustibus and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point about my misuse of the term "pull quotes" - they aren't in the text so they're not being pulled out for emphasis. My argument is that, IMHO of course, this particular quote serves no purpose except to look nice, since it's uninteresting and adds no content of any value. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem like enough people share my mild concern to make a change. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BBC4 play 'Wodehouse in Exile'

There is disagreement about whether to include mention of the 2013 BBC4 TV drama "Wodehouse in Exile" in the article, or merely as a footnote. Here's a review about it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9953374/Wodehouse-in-Exile-BBC-Four-review.html

Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't "merely" in the footnote, it just is in the fn: that is still in the article, just not within the body of the text.

Appearance on one of terrestrial television's least watched channels is, in the wider context of Wodehouse, his life and legacy, not terribly core to our understanding of him or his work. Judged from that point, it is a piece of trivia. However, because it is about him, it just about warrants a mention on the page, if not in the body of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Few people check footnotes, whatever their format. It might as well not be there, IMHO.

I would argue that the fact the BBC thought this one part of Plum's life was significant enough to build a play around it reflects the impact that it continues to have even decades later. That's why it's worthy of mention in the body of the article - not because of the broadcast itself so much as what it shows about Britain's reaction then, and now, to the events. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Few people check footnotes"

We labour the point about the impact of his wartime activities enough in the article. Trivia, like a one-programme on the least-watched channel on terrestrial television, shouldn't be in the article. Just because it has appeared on television doesn't mean it is of encyclopaedic value (Christ, I've appeared on television – twice. Should I start an article about myself now?!) such trivia needs to be considered with a sense of perspective. – SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and our respective senses of perspective have reached different conclusions, as is often the case when human beings interact. Let's hope others chime in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wodehouse fans! The article describes Wodehouse's wartime exile and activites in detail. The fact that someone made a TV show about it (that did not receive any particular international acclaim) is exactly the sort of thing that footnotes are for, in my opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Ssilvers and SchroCat. Mention of this minor fact even in a footnote is borderline, I'd say, and moving it into the main text would be disproportionate and unbalancing. Tim riley talk 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Well ... all great ideas begin in a minority of one, so I'll claim that my idea is great! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

And the bad ones remain in a minority of one? - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:English broadcasters for Nazi Germany

I understand why Wodehouse is categorized in Category:English broadcasters for Nazi Germany, but I find it unsatisfactory. That category is a child category of Category:English Nazi collaborators. Wodehouse was not a collaborator in the legal sense, and postwar consensus is that he wasn't one in the moral sense either. He certainly isn't traveling in the same company as John Amery or Jack Trevor. It's an important incident in Wodehouse's life, but I wonder if there's a better way to capture it. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Istr that Burgess was quite rude about PGW and the war, or had one of his characters, or perhaps one of his characters' characters, be quite rude about him. I vaguely recall them having a post-BrAnschluß Wooster or similar character go Cheeriheil! or something. But no, that is hardly a post-war consensus ... cheers DBaK (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how much notice any readers take of categories, but the preposition here is ad rem. Wodehouse's broadcasts were from but not for Nazi Germany. But as I doubt if most visitors to Wikipedia ever look at the categories it probably doesn't matter much. The facts are, of course, made clear in the text. Tim riley talk 17:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that categories are pretty useless, except to a subset of wikipedia geeks. They're like "genre" listings for music infoboxes - something that editors fuss about endlessly but which are irrelevant to readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Humorist

In an attempt to head the on-coming edit-war off at the pass (@SchroCat, Deb, and Gerda Arendt:)...discuss.

I note that humourist in the OED redirects to "humorist". ——SerialNumber54129 10:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I've never seen it spelled any other way and "humorist" is certainly correct in British English. I think this is a case of hypercorrection. Deb (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's related discussion on my talk, but will be archived soon. - Deb, if you are right (which may well be but really doesn't matter in an edit war), please see to our article humorist not telling us that it's humourist in British Englsh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Seen to  :) in any case, WP:WPNOTRS, etc. At least this is where the discussion should take place though, I agree. It's presumably a case of the root differing from the affix. ——SerialNumber54129 11:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's plenty of RS that use "humourist", including the BBC, The Independent, etc. Perhaps a case where both are commonly used. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What's even better is when the BBC calls Wodehouse himself a—you guessed it! [2]  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 12:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I would have to argue that "humorist" is far more common in British English. "Humourist" looks to me like an archaism. I can understand why people who aren't British would think that "humourist" is "correct", because of the analogy with words like "colourful" and "armoury", but that's just not the case. I note that it's referred to in dictionaries as "an alternative spelling" that's [only used in] British English, and that may lead people to think that it is "an alternative spelling" that's [always used in] British English Deb (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that Deb is right here – that we often see a hypercorrection leading us back to a spelling which is largely abandoned. Looking at the examples given ... well I am rubbish at this ngram thing but on a simple google I can say that on the Indy website it's about 2:1 against the U, and on the Beeb it is more like 10:1 against. Most importantly to me (and yes we all have our idols and belief systems) my 2005 ODWE (i.e. an actual book, printed on bits of paper!) lists humorist and humorous and says explicitly not to use that U. That's good enough for me, being somewhat close to the Voice of G*d. Oh and online too, though I don't know if you can see it without a sub - just in case, here it is for some if not all. (Yes, I tried pressing its Cite button – it just gazed sadly back at me.) Also, why has no-one yet done a non-U joke here yet?? Best to all, DBaK (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Goodness me, DBAK, you really can't trust actual books printed on bits of paper!, you know. Martinhitler123 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 – I'm embarrassed to admit that I am getting the new edition tomorrow! It's not called ODWE any more as they rolled it in with Harts and called it the New Oxford Global Sex Food Life and Death Manual or something, but the idea is the same. ODWE - not so much an addiction, more a way of life. Who said that? Me, actually. DBaK (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

And jolly good show too, I say, what ho! So very glad to see that they still have lashings of your favourite turquoise ink down at that jolly quaint local stationers of yours. MartinBrinkley123 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm wondering about the copyright implications of linking to the Russian Wodehouse site, as we do in the external links. As far as I know Orwell is still in copyright, and I am concerned that we may be falling foul of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Tim riley talk 21:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that might be right contributory copyright infringement may be a problem here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll comment it out, pending clarification. Better safe than sorry. Tim riley talk 18:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Later: I've asked the Wikipedia copyright experts for a a view. Tim riley talk 20:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Slang

I took out a newly-added edit about Wodehouse's use of slag today. It was my intention to drop it into a more appropriate section, but when I looked at the source, I found it was a blog site, so this cant be used as a source anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised he's using slang today. But what about a dictionary source? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Bible

Should this material, recenty added by User:Rob Reilly, be included:

Wodehouse also displays a fair acquaintance with the King James Version of the Bible, when he brings in well known phrases and references to Bible stories in Bertie's thoughts.

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Wodehouse's use of the Authorised Version may perhaps be worth a mention, suitably worded, and not as a one-sentence paragraph, but the sourcing of the recent insertion is dodgy. The first source is OK, a respectable academic site, but of the rest, one gives the bible only a passing mention, two are from fan sites (one of them excellent admittedly but still a fan site), and one from a religious propaganda outfit. I don't think we can be said to be in WP:RS territory here. Tim riley talk 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the first source looks OK. I thought the last was somewhat obscure, but seemingly respectable, saying this: "First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How about this,

A new short sentence following the sentence about Clarke Olney and poets, but in the same paragraph.

Wodehouse also used allusions to and quotes from the Authorized Version or King James Version (1611) of the Bible., ,

Rob Reilly (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I think we can safely just refer to the King James Bible; it is more usually known in Britain as the Authorised Version, but the former is clear enough. The Madame Eulalie page is most interesting but does not, I think, qualify as a WP:RS: better to stick to the one citation to the clearly OK university source. Tangentially, I have noticed some allusions in the canon to the Book of Common Prayer, but I have no RS to hand on this point. Like other boys from public schools, Wodehouse would have absorbed some of his biblical knowledge from the daily reading from the BCP in chapel. The translations in the BCP are not the same as those in the AV: for example, in Psalm 35:14: "I went heavily, as one that mourneth" (BCP) and "I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth" (AV); I think I remember noticing the former somewhere, though in which book I cannot recall. But I digress. As Olney also mentions the Bible I have made a brief addition to the page, citing him and the university site. See what you think. Tim riley talk 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first is fine, although it doesn't refer to which version of the bible (it's very probably the King James, but we can't make the claim if the source doesn't);

I see Tim has added Olney as a secondary source to show the use of King James - which works well for me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The second I wouldn't consider reliable when discussing Wodehouse;

The third is a fansite, and therefore should not be used. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification edit

An IP made this edit [3] which IMHO clarifies the text and helps with adhering to WP:V. It has ben reverted without referring to the quality of the change but with mention of the editor as 'an IP edit warrior'. Please could others comment on the value of the proposed changes?SovalValtos (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It was explained in a previous reversion: the IP has just edit warred to their preferred version, which you have enabled by continuing the reversion cycle. It does not clarify anything, and is entirely within WP:V. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate to use the word 'fatuous' but the IP's change was singularly unhelpful. The version that SchroCat has restored is preferable. It also happens to be the one approved by numerous reviewers at PR and FAC. Tim riley talk 10:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semiprtoected for one week. As an aside, I was re-reading The Mating Season (in Hebrew — which has the benefit of excellent footnotes) today, which is always good for a laugh! El_C 09:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always wondered about this: does Wodehouse translate well into other languages? Much of his language is so 'English' - archaic and full of schoolboy slang, that I've always wondered how well it works. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, the Hebrew translation has footnotes —a lot of footnotes (usually two or more for every page!)— which goes on to elucidate a lot of that. Much is lost in translation, though, I'm sure. El_C 09:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Usborne devotes a whole chapter (17 pages) to a study of efforts to translate Wodehouse. He leaves the reader to make up his own mind, but gives enough examples to make it clear that a very great deal can be lost in translation. Among Usborne's examples is the German version of Leave it to Psmith, the opening lines of which are:

At the open window of the great library of Blandings Castle, drooping like a wet sock, as was his habit when he had nothing to prop his spine against, the Earl of Emsworth, that amiable and boneheaded peer, stood gazing out over his domain.

The German for the whole of that sentence reads:

Am offenen Verandofenster in Schloss Blandings stand Lord Emsworth and blickte auf seine weiten Domanen.

Usborne comments, "Would you say that Herr Fraenkel [the translator] had wrung the last drop of meaning out of the English?" Tim riley talk 11:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I wish the translation I have would have featured a page or two by the translator — a practice which is quite common for Hebrew translations. But to his credit, the translator, Dan Daor, does an excellent job. The language is lively and playful and, again, references which the average Israeli reader would probably find rather obtuse or obscure are clarified in brief footnotes throughout. El_C 11:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions

I have reverted the recent changes by Vimmelskaft. They are plainly good faith and other editors may disagree with my deletion of them. It seems to me that the additions to the lead are a bit too detailed and are covered appropriately in the main text. And though I am a great fan of Madame Eulalie, I'm not at all sure the site qualifies as a WP:RS. Happy to discuss further if other editors disagree with my take on this. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

Please User:SchroCat can you explain why you consider it OK to have spelling in another version of English rather than the British English specified in a 2015 hatnote, as stated in your edit summary to this edit[4]. The spellings in question being humourist and humorist.SovalValtos (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

See the OED. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SchroCatThank you for your time spent explaining.SovalValtos (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

See also Chambers Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage. "Humorist" = correct BrE form. Tim riley talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Link to Orwell journalism

Could user User:SchroCat explain why he reverted the edit linking to the full text of Orwell's "In Defense of PG Wodehouse". I have a glimmer of an idea that it might be for copyright reasons, but an explanation would be nice, and helpful to me. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It was partly for copyright reasons and partly because that isn't a reliable source. (sorry about the lack of edit summary - I hit the wrong part of my iPad as I was about to add it). - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reception and reputation section

Hi everyone, I recently added a large amount of information to the 'Reception and reputation' section in an edit which was reverted by Cassianto, who explained that such a large edit should be discussed in the talk page first when it comes to featured articles. That's a good point that didn't occur to me, and I'd like to thank Cassianto for the clear explanation. In line with what Cassianto explained, I am now proposing here on the talk page to redo that edit, which involves adding information about Wodehouse societies and actor portrayals, and also splitting the section into two subsections. I didn't remove anything from the section. Please take a look at the changes I made at this link or in the page's edit history. Thanks for your time. Miles26 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto is right, but as one of the principal contributors to the existing text I have no problem with Miles's addition. It's substantial, and perhaps could be slimmed a little (hark who's talking!), but is relevant, proportionate and well sourced, I think. May I say what a pleasure it is to run across an editor who doesn't park his (or her) tanks on the lawn, but engages in discussion here? Tim riley talk 17:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Miles26, hello, thanks for being understanding on this. I agree with Tim, what you've added is very good, but may need some fettling before it is added. Thank you for taking this in good spirit. Cassianto^Talk 17:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim riley and Cassianto, thank you very much for your responses. I don't have much experience editing featured articles and I am very grateful for your feedback and guidance. I have no problem with what I wrote being trimmed, but I don't know what parts should be removed. Would one or both of you be willing to trim it, or tell me what to change? I've copied the section as it was in my edit to my sandbox. You are both welcome to edit the sandbox, and please let me know if there is a different place or process I should use for working on the edit. Miles26 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll look in later today, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ditto on what the others say: thank you for your patient approach here; the material is all pertinent, but just needs a bit of trimming ere and there (particularly around the activities of the societies, which is drifting too far away from an encyclopaedic biography, I think. I've hacked about with the text a little in your sandbox, dropping the portrayals into a footnote and getting rid of the clubs's activities, while leaving the core of the information there. The one thing I don't now like is the subtitle "Honours and influence". "Honours", when seen as a subtitle in WP, tends to signify a list of knighthoods, awards and the assorted tinware that causes dinner jackets to lose their shape. The current name isn't necessarily wrong, but the expectation for some people may jar. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat. I have tried to think of a word to replace "Honours" in the subtitle "Honours and influence", but I haven't been able to come up with anything. Do you know of a word or subtitle that would be better? Miles26 (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas regarding the subsection title? Or any other thoughts about the material in my sandbox? Miles26 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that unless someone comes up with something crisper, we can go with your title for the time being, and your content seems to me to be fine. Tim riley talk 19:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

All right, is there anything else I should do, or can I add the material in my sandbox to the article? Miles26 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

OK with me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Miles26, looks good. Cassianto^Talk 10:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll do the edit now. Thanks again Cassianto, Tim riley, and SchroCat for your help. Miles26 (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work by Miles26, me judice. Thank you Miles and other colleagues for such a thoughtful and accommodating exchange, and a worthwhile addition to the article. Tim riley talk 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Why are we avoiding an infobox for this article? It makes the article seem out of date. I'm sure they also help seo and APIs having the structured data in the article. Crazytonyi (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been carefully considered and rejected. See the archive of this talk page. Tim riley talk 18:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That discussion only concerned whether to put pen-names in the then-existing infobox. When people agreed the pen names didn't belong, they decided there wasn't enough material left to keep the infobox, so it was deleted. They never debated whether a properly edited infobox was a good idea.

Besides, that was five years ago. I am in general not enthusiastic about infoboxes but they have become standard on articles about authors. If it's good enough for Mark Twain, Agatha Christie and Chinua Achebe, I don't think Plum should stand aloof. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the I-B for Dame Agatha is a locus classicus of why an I-B is a lousy (to use one of PGW's favourite adjectives) idea for an author like Wodehouse. Look at the "notable works" ("notable" being a highly weasly weasel word): I could nominate at least one alternative for most of the works listed. True, the first three and the last one are copper-bottomed, but some of the others are distinctly also-rans, in my view. And do we really give a hoot who her nephew was? I am a great fan of info-boxes where they serve a useful function – career stats for politicians, sportspeople, clergy etc, but for creative artists they are not helpful to the reader and make Wikipedia look a bit silly. You will note that the ODNB etc feel no need for such a thing. Tim riley talk 19:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because an infobox has a category doesn't mean it needs to be used. We're editors, not just box-checkers. And Crazytonyi's comment about their role in SEO and API is notable. Even if we don't like it, that's not a good reason to treat this article differently than similar ones. (Also, I don't know what ODNB is) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

ODNB appears to be a prestigious print based encyclopedia of British notables, first published in 1885.

I had something more like Wikidata or DBPedia in mind. I agree that some infoboxes are awful, and can have garbage in them. But it's very useful for a quick fact check of what year someone died, their birthplace, or other biographical details; and they can often draw you further into an article you expected to only skim. The current article requires a commitment to learning about the library that not everyone who is causally interested is ready to make. Biographical articles should not just be a reward for people who have already gotten a passionate interest in a topic. Are there better Agatha Christie novels than on her infobox? Almost certainly. But her article isn't just meant for people who have such depth of knowledge. Those who love the subject or who know it back and forth are meant to be editors of those articles, not the primary audience. Crazytonyi (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Follow up note: I've found that many decisions regarding wikipedia articles are driven a bit by a specific presentation of the article. We don't always realize that the way something is organized is based on how we personally interact with the article layout itself. If you aren't normally reading wiki articles on a phone, you may not realize how much information is hidden under the top level article headers. I think anyone who reads a lot of biographical articles on their phone would know how helpful it is to have infoboxes and well-broken-up sections for making the article more digestible. Crazytonyi (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and add it, and we'll see how it goes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And I would say that's a pretty shoddy suggestion, ignoring the views of all the PR and FAC reviewers that the article without an I-B is of FA standard. Tim riley talk 17:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

But what could we put in an info-box that would be (i) encyclopadically objective while also being (ii) helpful to the reader? Look at the Beethoven article for what you end up with if you try. It makes Wikipedia look very amateurish. Tim riley talk 07:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're assuming that the infobox is read as part of the whole article, which makes it redundant at best. But it serves a separate purpose - it's a quick summary and, as Crazytonyi says, is the main thing (or maybe the only thing) that many readers encounter, especially on mobile devices. The Beethoven infobox is quite good: It gives a quick summary of important life facts; the article's still there for people who want more details. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The Beethoven info-box says "Notable work: list of compositions" (directing readers to an entirely different article, God save us!), and tells you things that no visitor to the article is likely to care about – the names of his parents. How does that comply with WP's policy that info-boxes are to "summarize key features of the page's subject?" I'm all for info-boxes when they do that – I added this one recently – but they don't usually work for creative artists. Tim riley talk 13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

An infobox on this article would be unnecessary and inappropriate as it will contain nothing that isn’t already in the lead section. Dreamspy (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a problem: an infobox isn't an information supplement, it's a repackaging for different readers - as WP:INFOBOX says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." The lead is more than 20 sentences and four full paragraphs, and it talks about Dulwich College and working at a bank before it mentions Jeeves. It's a well-written introduction for a full article but not for casual readers who know little or nothing about PGW and who are reading on a small screen, especially in this quick-info-bite world. This article needs to serve them, too. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If you read the previous contributions carefully you will see why that is not really an option. Let's see if a consensus emerges for such a change as you advocate. Tim riley talk 18:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. (8) Particularly for so good a writer as Wodehouse, this mechanical feature is abhorrent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur, and would just add that there is a formidable consensus to overturn: 6 reviewers at PR and 8 at FAC approved the article without an info-box. We discussed an I-B at the former and agreed it didn't want one. Tim riley talk 19:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There certainly is no consensus for one. I do think, however, that the anti-infobox point of view comes from people (like me) who are familiar with WP and read it through websites, and overlooks the value that they give to casual readers and those who only use mobile devices. But I'll stop bellowing like a mastodon across a primeval swamp. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That is most gracious, thank you. Tim riley talk 21:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

English respelling for pronunciation doesn't match IPA

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)

As long as the pronunciation guides make it crystal clear that the first syllable rhymes with "good" and "should" rather than "road" and "toad" I have no strong views. Very few of our readers, I think, are fluent in IPA, and refinements therein for the cognoscenti are fine with me, for one. Tim riley talk 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted language edits

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)

It looks as though it will help if I explain Wikipedia's Featured Article process. An article, often after a peer review by various colleagues, is examined by any interested editors at the Featured Article (FAC) process, which is rigorous. Prose issues are dealt with at one or both reviews, and the resulting article is agreed as the best Wikipedia has to offer. The article can, of course, be improved thereafter, but prudence is advisable, and it is not on the whole wise for any visiting editor to proclaim that s/he knows better than the principal authors and all the reviewers put together, or to wade in with wholesale alterations to suit his/her personal preferences. Your prose suggestions, including a clunky false title and inconsistent spelling, and showing ignorance of the normal conventions for citing authors in the present tense, are not really up to scratch, I'm afraid. I hope this helps you understand better. Tim riley talk 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree that the status quo version is the better of the two. The language is appropriate (and certainly not the sneeringly described “schoolboy parody of Edwardian prose”), and it summarises the points well. Note, summarises. This is an encyclopaedic article, not a full-length book, so we don’t need to give a series of examples of the editorial comment, for example, just note that there was some. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:2C03:C4C2:31E2:927C (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)