User talk:JohnnyZen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 15:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince & Betty

My source for this matter has been the Russian Wodehouse Society's very nice bibliography, and I interpreted it to say that the UK Psmith, Journalist and the US Prince and Betty are identical - the same book released under two names - while the UK Prince and Betty is the substantially rewritten book that you mention, with Rupert Smith rather than Psmith. Unfortunately, I neither own nor have access to any of these publications, so I can't provide verification; your guess seems to be as good as mine. — Dan | talk 18:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's also possible that the US Prince and Betty is the rewritten version and the UK Prince and Betty is a third novel entirely, though again this is just a guess. — Dan | talk 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Swoop

I accidentally put my reply to you on the talk page of User Talk:Essjay - q.v. Thanks for clarifying it all. Carrionluggage 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Once again the reply missed your page - I putit on mine! Oh, well - I guess I am "digitally challenged." Carrionluggage 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the new passage. I might interpret it differently, however (though you are the Wodehouse expert). I would tend to look on it more as a put-down on the Germans and Russians (in terms of impracticality more than of racism or ethnocentricity). It gives the British a chance to gloat on how they used Gurkhas and (as shown in the cinema Ghandi) Chinese mercenaries effectively for their ends. It also gives the Boy Scouts a better purchase on the winning flanks. In other words, Wodehouse's position might have been: "Fine to use mercenaries, tradespeople, merchants and all for one's ends irrespective of race or national origin, but don't credit tham with the fine degree of civilisation we have here in England." Carrionluggage 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I forgot the Hessians, [http://www.americanrevolution.org/hessindex.html} who fought us! (OK, I'm a Yank.) Actually, England is one of my favourite places - I'm friends with a Lord (who was in Commons for about 40 years)and I keep all my essential science work in a directory, "RuleTheWaves" (after Arne, of course). But in the days of Wodehouse and prior - of course we saw mercenaries used (but little respected). Anyway, you guys took a pounding in WWII, saving us a lot of pain, too - so thanks! Carrionluggage 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Pretty sure it's two == and not three. Generally, if there are sections in an article, whether it be external links or otherwise, it should be a second level heading (2 equal signs); as a general rule, use three for subsections of sections. The three at Wikipedia:Guide to layout is not indicative of how you should do it in articles - it's three there for structuring the guide to layout. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little, Brown

I hope you don't mind too much that I sort of overran Little, Brown and Company. I've had notes for that article sitting around for two or three months, but had not taken the time to start it. When I saw someone had started the article, it kicked me into using the information I had. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not at all, I only kicked it off as I'd put it in so many Wodehouse articles and wanted to keep the red to a minimum, but couldn't find much out - great job :) - on a side note, I don't suppose your publisher book has anything on UK publishers? Just realised all my links to Herbert Jenkins, which I thought were good, are going to an American policeman, and my googling skills don't seem to be up to finding anything out about this pub. house (later Barrie & Jenkins) - really should make a start at sorting this out... JohnnyZen 10:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the series I found Little, Brown in hasn't covered publishers outside of the States (and not even every one in the States), although a future volume might. I red-linked some publishers in some early articles, and Little, Brown is only the second of those to become real. I don't bother red-linking publishers now, as I already have a long list of things I want to work on. Maybe in a year or two I might have time to pursue that. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galahad at Blandings changes

Hi, thanks for your message. "Fiddling" could be said to be what wiki editing is all about. Anyway to answer to your specific points. Firstly is this a novel or a play. I thought it was categorised as a novel. Next the article style established by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate has the sequence as you see. The aim is to provide some limited consistency between novel articles so that people can find similar information in similar named headings and in similar parts of articles. If this is the first Wodehouse article affected that does not mean that consistency is not the aim, quite the reverse. We are not aiming to be dictatorial or course, but the lack of consistency and for many authors, lack of quality, leaves a bit to be desired. I have not reviewed the Wodehouse canon on wikipedia so this is meant as no comment on these.

Not so sure I would agree the sequence is the standard. For plays, yes no doubt about that; the cast are almost always mentioned first. But for novels I'm not so sure this is the case. In fact as I have scanned plot summaries and synopsis' across the web for fuel for all manner of novel articles on wikipedia I find that invariably the Plot is the thing. The character are either only mentioned as part of the plot development or are mentioned second. I know this is not universal but just based on my own observation, and I have been at this a while now, the balance is in favour of the current project sequence. As an aside the article template was not primarily my work it was someone else's work that has been adapted. Just to indicate that I am not defending my own work or original idea. Also if we can be convinced of a "standard" as you suggest I would be the first to get envolved to abide by it. All the best, thanks for your input. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Ickenham

Please take a look at the article; other than Uncle Fred, do any of the earls have an existence in canon? Someone tried to slip it into the list of British peerages, and if the other earls are just someone's imagination, we'd be best off redirecting "Earl of Ickenham" to his article. Choess 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've certainly never heard of any of these characters, can only assume it's a joke of some kind; I'll have a flick back through the books I have (still missing one from my set, hence not finished writing them up yet) but I think the page can safely be removed JohnnyZen 10:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: P. G. Wodehouse tweaks

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with it. I guess I didn't notice this subtle difference between the way novels and short stories were to be displayed (I thought someone had included double quotes by mistake, instead of using two single quotes for italics, so I corrected it). Thanks for letting me know, I'll be on my guard the next time! Also, I'm afraid I might have made similar changes to other PGW articles too. Let me get hold of them and undo the changes. --Madhu 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)