Talk:Stanley J. Weyman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead link to annotated bibliography[edit]

The link to violetbooks.com is dead. I found an archived version of this page on archive.today, but received a message while editing that this site is not to be linked to from Wikipedia. I have therefore marked the original link as dead. John.D.Ward (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

I do not think that it is better to link to a comprehensive external bibliography than it is to build one in WP. Rather that simply revert Peter Shearan's change, I will paste the excised list here and we can restore it if that is the consensus:

--Theo (Talk) 18:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to create summaries for the books; back in the UK after 35 years with the world's most travelled set of Weyman novels (been round it three times) and most of them I haven't read for 20 years, so this will help me. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it, Robin. The article is becoming too long for the importance of its subject. There are thousands of articles out there in dire need of attention. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Stanley J. Weyman[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Stanley J. Weyman. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ovington's Bank[edit]

Minimal notable information added, could easily be added to author's page. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 01:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further text added. I'm opposed to the merger.Bmcln1 (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

Does anyone object if I expand this section? He's an interesting character, especially in terms of why he is so neglected. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biographical info is fine. I agree with you about the novels and why they disappeared from bookshops, but unfortunately editors cannot have opinions. You need to quote secondary sources here. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look around for the secondary sources but I think you've overdone the punctuation stuff - most of the second paragraph reads like Earnest Hemingway in a hurry and in any case, it's a stylistic criticism, not a correction of editorial content. Can you also clarify for me what exactly constitutes 'over-linking?'

I'm not asking just to be difficult; I'm (relatively) new to Wikipedia but I have a fairly wide range of interests and I'm struggling with the reality every single editor I've met so far has a different view on style, sources, when to link, what constitutes fair comment etc - despite the Wikipedia principles. Which means I'm having to correct these elements for four or five different people and it makes writing these much harder work. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking: We don't usually link the same page twice in the same article. Generally understood concepts and places are not usually linked. Still, there's quite a lot of leeway here. Remember the Americans have little general knowledge of the UK and vice versa. Point of view: The difficulty arises because this is not an academic paper, say, where you should have opinions and back them. It is an encyclopaedia entry, where the authoritative or irritating opinions of others can be relevant and should be referenced. I hope that helps. Style: Important to ensure that our busy readers get the info they want easily. Encyclopaedias don't show a personal style. The aim is to be as succinct and clear as possible. On the whole, the more editors fiddle with the text[comma?] the better it gets. Not always, of course! I see what you mean about Hemingway, but was he ever in a hurry? Punctuation: OUP has a site whose name escapes me. If you're in American English (can be a puzzle to us Brits), The Chicago Manual of Style is the ultimate, I guess. I find commas difficult in both Englishes. Where possible they should be used in pairs, but trim them if you like, no problem. Thank you for your interesting points, anyway. Best, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like your latest version. Getting better and better. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. At the risk of being irritating :), the title of Weyman's degree is Modern History, not modern history the subject. I changed barrister to lawyer; the distinction doesn't matter here and only the Brits understand it anyway. Reginald Pound called them Strand writers, not the Strand Magazine writers.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial policy[edit]

I recently received an e-mail from Wikipedia asking for my comments on improving it. My response was that the mindset of many existing editors appears diametrically opposed to the collaborative environment Wikipedia was built on and an obstacle to improving it. That's not a view unique to me.

I tell my clients to look for trends, rather than reacting to one-offs and working virtually with others often requires the assumption of good intent. As a result, I've learned to be pretty patient on Wikipedia but that's now five editors out of eight where my first interaction has left me feeling intensely frustrated. It's not the criticism; we can all learn from each other (including editors) but the phrasing often appears based on the mindset of an elderly and obstreperous teacher talking to a slow learner.

This page has not been updated for years and entirely due to my interest, it's now a lot better. I did it because I think Weyman deserves to be read more widely and I'd like to help that process by making this easy to read.

As a result, I asked for guidelines. I've had articles published in real magazines people pay money for, so I'm not a grammar expert but I'm not illiterate. My 'punctuation is all over the place' because I'm trying to figure out what you want. Your first approach 'They had no children. She died four years later' is very different from the corrections made yesterday. I shouldn't have to guess the stylistic preferences of each editor.

I've spent most of my life working in Asia and the Middle East, so I've had to think carefully about English for non-native speakers. That requires the use of commonly understood words and phrases. If Wikipedia is to be a place where it's easy to find information, justifying obscure phrases by creating more links cannot always be the answer.

I'm a Brit. My two brothers are lawyers; I have various friends who are lawyers, one of whom is a barrister and he calls himself a lawyer too. Barrister, briefs are not commonly used. I myself have a degree in Modern History; I've never used the phrase 'Graduating in Modern History' or heard anyone else do so. More importantly, this isn't the Academie Francaise; why argue about them? What is the value? How does it make Weyman more accessible? (These are rhetorical questions).

This is not an argument I either need or am interested in winning. You do what you do, I'm off to Lebanon and Egypt for the next two weeks so I'm going to leave this discussion, get on with doing my book reviews and ignore this page in future. That seems a shame.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you mentioned your degree. Well done. A Cambridge BA in modern history is not to be sneezed at. I think the page has shaped up well, as I've said. Don't be sparing with links, though. Remember there are more ways than ten to say most things and the first one thought of may not be the clearest or pithiest. Your punctuation's improved. Capitalization often depends on context and style of writing, not just the word itself. Keep an eye how others handle it. Our job is termed "editor" rather than "writer", despite the writing we have to do. Original writers have a right to be indignant if their work is changed; editors don't: we're in it together, aiming at a text that's clear, orderly and encyclopaedic. Have a good hols. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neglect[edit]

Luck also plays a part. The reputation of many of his contemporaries now rests on one book, e. g. The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Four Feathers, or The Prisoner of Zenda. His close friend and equally successful author Hugh Stowell, who wrote as H. Seton Merriman, has also been largely forgotten. Weyman called his own books "pleasant fables" and was aware of their modest literary value.

This seems rather odd, Weyman was one of the writers of my youth, and however I disagree with him --- he was pro-such traitors as O Cromwell and William III --- he was as readable as most of his middle-brow contemporaries.

One really can't expect most authors to be popular 100 years after their deaths, partly through the accretion down the years of a multiplicity of new authors, day by day. Who on earth will read present-day Booker Prize Winners, or writers of modest literary value presently acclaimed by the Guardian and such culture declarers in the year 2150 ? Claverhouse (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_J._Weyman&oldid=1199553295"