Talk:P. G. Wodehouse

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)

P. G. Wodehouse revert

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)

Thanks for your note- which I have moved from my talk page to here. The reason I put the information back into the chronological run is that his marriage - while obviously important for the Wodehouses, isn't of enough encyclopaedic significance to warrant its own section. Why a section for that and not for every other aspect of his rather busy life? If we divide an article into multiple tiny sections just to separate each factoid from another, we may as well just bullet point the entire article. Personally when I am searching for an specific fact, such as when someone married or what the wife's name is, I tend to use Control and F to find it, which would probably have saved you some searching time. Still, I hope you enjoyed reading the article in the meantime. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

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: 82.38.214.91 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Hi IP, Looking at the article's history, I don't see any edits including this information and no reverts.

Looking at what there is, I'm not sure the playlets are significant enough for inclusion. Wodehouse wrote 42 plays and 15 scripts (along with the 72 novels and 23 short story collections), and most of these are not included in the article because there isn't enough space for them all and/or many of them are not notable enough to cover alongside the works for which he is internationally known even 50 years after his death. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed the IP added that material... to the BFR article. In August last year. Which has not been reverted. And which section had nothing to do with bankers etc. Is there a Specsavers in SW England. Or just mescaline :D ——Serial 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting thread. The edit appears to relate to a contribution made on 8th August 2023. I have made some edits and reposted it with additional peer-reviewed references that include supportive comments from Hilary Bruce, N.T.P. Murphy and McCrum. Bw, Prspiring (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Using the rationale of my comment above, I’ve removed it. The ‘playlets’ in themselves are too trivial (particularly when compared with other works that are not mentioned), and the 2009 work is far too tangential to warrant inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I respect your view and do see your point. Nevertheless, Robinson was the PGW's editor at Vanity Fair (May 1904 – October 1906) and clearly he helpeded to support and promote subject's early literary career. Therefore, it does appear rather at odds with the views expressed by the notable scholars in the accompanying references that there is no reference to this four year nascent collaboration. Nevertheless, I understand that we live in a democracy and I also recognise your concerns surrounding a potential COI. So let's just leave it to the other readers to decide, because afterall, "There is no surer foundation for a beautiful friendship than a mutual taste in literature." :) Bw, Prspiring (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)