Talk:P. G. Wodehouse

Emsworth

The inspiration for the name Lord Emsworth was the village of Emsworth which was close to PG's heart. Yet there seems to be no mention of Emsworth ot its importance to PG. I would like to rectify this with the following text, citing Robert McCrum's biography.

===Emsworth===

The coastal village of Emsworth in West Sussex was to become a very special place for Wodehouse. He first went there in 1903 at the invitation of his friend Herbert Westbrook. Westbrook was a schoolmaster with literary aspirations who taught at Emsworth House school where Wodehouse initially lived in a room above the stables. The surprising move from London is explained by Wodehouse's life-long love of rural seclusion. . In 1904 Wodehouse rented a house called Threepwood, adjoining Emsworth House, where he stayed on and off from 1904 to 1914. His housekeeper at Threepwood was Lillian 'Lily' Barnett with whom he would develop a lifelong friendship, and to whom he expressed the intense happiness he always felt about Emsworth. . In later life, Wodehouse often stayed at Emsworth House, usually on the way to one of his habitual New York liner crossings from Southampton. . Wodehouse frequently named his characters after places he knew well, with Lord Emsworth as a prime example. Threepwood became the family name of Lord Emsworth. Other Emsworth-related characters include Lord Emsworth's heir, Viscount Bosham, and Lord Stockheath. Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Let me explain as gently as I can how Wikipedia works. Editors gather and sift their material, concentrating on the essentials and resisting the temptation to stray into interesting but inessential byways. The result, if we do our jobs well, is what we term a Featured Article, reviewed by fellow Wikipedia contributors and judged to be examples of the best Wikipedia articles. Wodehouse here has 8,700 words, which is considerably more than the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives him, but very, very considerably less than the full-length biographies by Jasen (294 pages), Donaldson (399 pages) or McCrum (530 pages). The main editors of this article have striven to present the key facts about Wodehouse's life and works, and although what you say in your proposed addition is perfectly true, this is what Usborne says on the same point (p. 115):

Emsworth is, in fact, a town on the border of Sussex and Hampshire, in a district rich in place-names that have acquired glory in song or legend. Hilaire Belloc's Ha'naker and Duncton Hill are near by, and Wodehouse has taken from the villages of Bosham and Warblington names for Lord Emsworth's heir (Lord Bosham) and one of his many sisters (Lady Ann Warblington).

This is fine – very fine – in a full-length book, but it would be excessive in an 8,700-word encyclopaedia article, as I fear your paragraph would also be. I hope this explains why the regular editors of the article have resisted the addition. Tim riley talk 17:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your description of the importance of Emsworth to Wodehouse as an 'inessential byway'. He certainly would not regard it as such. Quite the reverse. His affection for the place tells us much about the man and surely has a place in his wiki biography. Such was the importance of Emsworth in his life that there are plans afoot to erect a statue of him in the village. The sculptor would be Philip Jackson, a world class artist responsible for many public monuments like the young Mozart in Belgravia and Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. I would argue that my entry adds an important dimension to PG's page. I respectfully hope you will reconsider. 2A00:23C8:3E86:5501:2025:5FBC:E69B:317 (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Like Tim, I think this is too detailed for this short encyclopaedic biography (I note that neither the ODNB nor the Encyclopaedia Britannica make space for it in their entries). Fine for full-length biographies, not notable enough for a summary of his life. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a courteous response, for which I thank you. Wikipedia works by consensus, and if you can gather a consensus to include your paragraph, so be it. For my own part I think the suggested addition is not really core material, for the reasons I have stated, and I'm asking the other major contributor to the article, SchroCat, to comment. Tim riley talk 21:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I accept the point that my entry was too long and detailed. But I would argue that PG's deep affection for Emsworth is not just another fact. It surely contributes to our understanding of the great man. And the fact that Emsworth inspired the name of some of his characters is surely significant. Please will you consider this severely edited version of what I originally suggested, which is now a mere 71 words.

===Emsworth===

In 1904 Wodehouse rented a house called Threepwood in the coastal village of Emsworth where he stayed on and off until 1914. Emsworth suited his love of rural seclusion and brought him intense happiness. It also inspired the names of some of his characters, with Lord Emsworth as a prime example. Threepwood became the family name of Lord Emsworth. Other Emsworth-related characters include Lord Emsworth's heir, Viscount Bosham, and Lord Stockheath. Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

The second half of this is unsourced and cannot go in, and I'm still not sure the first part is encyclopaedic (having affection for something doesn't normally reach the level for inclusion in an encyclopaedia). - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Lord Emsworth confirms the second half of my entry. If it was ok to go in there why not here? I'm new to all this, so would appreciate your patience. PG's love for Emsworth is a proven fact, so why can't something so important to our understanding of the man not be included? Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

In an article on, say, Romeo and Juliet you would expect to see that it is set in Verona, but you wouldn't expect to see it in the article on Shakespeare. What is proportionate and appropriate for one article is not necessarily so for another. See my explanation, above: editors gather and sift their material, concentrating on the essentials and resisting the temptation to stray into interesting but inessential byways. What the Rev Francis Heppenstall in "The Great Sermon Handicap" calls "the rather exhaustive excursus" is to be avoided, and I fear that the use of the place names from Emsworth and environs is in that category so far as a Life-and-Works encyclopaedia article is concerned. Not only do the ODNB and Britannica articles on Wodehouse omit mention of the place names, so too do The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature, Richard Voorhees in his 200-page study of Wodehouse and R. D. B. French in his 120-page study. Tim riley talk 12:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable? It could be accompanied by a photo of the blue plaque on the side of Threepwood stating that he lived there from 1904 – 1914.

===Emsworth===

In 1904 Wodehouse rented a house called Threepwood in the coastal village of Emsworth where he stayed on and off until 1914. It inspired the names of some of his characters, with Lord Emsworth as a prime example. Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You write, "having affection for something doesn't normally reach the level for inclusion in an encyclopaedia." And yet, re-reading his entry, these examples have been admitted.

"Wodehouse spent happy teenage years at Dulwich College, to which he remained devoted all his life." "Wodehouse's six years at Dulwich were among the happiest of his life." "In April he sailed to New York, which he found greatly to his liking."

Why is stating he loved Emsworth any different to saying he loved Dulwich or New York? Please reconsider. Wodehouse and Emsworth (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Omnibus

Is it worth mentioning Wodehouse's omnibus collections somewhere in the article? Their intent is to underscore the breadth and continuity of Wodehouse’s literary universe, and they are rather popular after all. Probably would only require a brief mention. Tigers1984 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Very difficult to see a suitable place in this article to mention them, but you might like to raise the suggestion at the talk page for P. G. Wodehouse bibliography. Tim riley talk 06:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello, @Tim riley. May you please explain your reversion here and why you implicitly described my edit here as ‘insane’? Keeper of Albion (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Please try not to be a vexatious editor, but propose any alterations you feel urged to make by discussion at the article talk page. This is a featured article and you should explain why you are right and the main editors and all the reviewers are wrong. Tim riley talk 20:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Reasoning was made clear in the edit summary. I am discussing the alterations at the talk page, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me to. The wording is editorialised and Wikipedia ought not to take a view on whether something was fortunate. I also introduced a comma for an appositive in the subsection ‘Reluctant banker; budding writer: 1900–1908’, which you reverted. May you please explain your reversion? Keeper of Albion (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• The original looks better in my opinion and sticks closer to the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Let us wait to see if this editor (whom I have run up against before and am not in any hurry to run up again) can assemble a consensus here for her/his proposed alterations to the FA text. Tim riley talk 20:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

    You reverted my edit because it had no consensus and it had no consensus because you reverted it? Keeper of Albion (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t own either work so I can’t comment on its proximity to them, although I may very well pick up Over Seventy purely for pleasure. Aesthetic preference counts for little in a discussion about the substance of the text, and especially when it has been argued the text contravenes one of the more widely observed recommendations of the manual of style. I’m not terribly bothered about the wording, but I’ll reinstate the comma before the appositive. Keeper of Albion (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Fatuous?

Original vs proposed change:

Born in Guildford, the third son of a British magistrate based in Hong Kong, Wodehouse spent happy teenage years at Dulwich College, to which he remained devoted all his life.

The third son of a British magistrate based in Hong Kong, Wodehouse was born in Guildford and spent happy teenage years at Dulwich College, to which he remained devoted all his life.

The FA version does not make grammatical sense. Compare with the following:

Born in Greenwich, the daughter of the King of England, Elizabeth was taught music and philosophy from an early age.

As you can see, the sentence structure means that the subordinate clause is modifying the prepositional phrase. You can prove this by changing out the subordinate to describe the first mentioned noun:

Born in Guildford, a town in Surrey southwest of London, Wodehouse spent happy teenage years at Dulwich College, to which he remained devoted all his life.

Or

Born in Greenwich, a borough of London on the south bank of the Thames, Elizabeth was taught music and philosophy from an early age.

I appreciate that, from context, a reader will intuit the sentence's meaning, but it is not grammatically accurate. The alternative I originally proposed was clunkier (but grammatical), but would the following be better?

Born in Guildford to a British magistrate based in Hong Kong, Wodehouse spent happy teenage years at Dulwich College, to which he remained devoted all his life.

Becsh (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. Is English your first language? Tim riley talk 17:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't nonsense, and while English is my first language you are doing a great disservice to non-native speakers who have a stronger hold on English grammar than those of us born here. I am not talking nonsense just because you don't understand what I mean!

You might refer to Michael Swan's Practical English Usage; the subsection "identifying and non-identifying clauses" (p. 234) points out that relative clauses tell us more about a subject already identified. Since in this instance the identified subject is Guildford, the subordinate clause describes Guildford. Becsh (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Now hear and attend and listen, O best beloved: I have all four editions of Fowler and all four editions of Gowers on my shelves, plus four other British style guides and works on English usage by A P Herbert, Eric Partridge and David Crystal. I do not need a half-baked lecture on English usage from drive-by editors. Tim riley talk 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

And I'm sure you have the Complete Works of Shakespeare, but I'd never expect you to recite them in their entirety without slipping up once. I feel that your remarks - calling my edit 'fatuous' and my explanation 'nonsense' and 'half-baked' - are not founded in anything other than your serial incivility. Becsh (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Déjà vu... —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• The original is far better, in my not-so-humble opinion. Aside from making grammatical sense, any 'misreadings' can only be done by someone trying to be confused, rather than by naturally being so. - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• I concur. Tim riley talk 18:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The status quo is best. PS - Is this something to really get into a content dispute about? GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Wholly agree, GoodDay, but there's always one who knows better than everybody else, isn't there? Tim riley talk 20:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason for why this should be one sentence. Just break them to two sentences like "Wodehouse was born in Guildford, the third son of a Hong Kong-based British magistrate. He spent his teenage years at Dulwich and remained devoted all his life." or something. This is an encyclopedia, the main goal is clarity, not prose. NyanThousand (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, two sentences is clearer. We're writing for an average English-speaking teenager. Short, simple, straightforward prose is best. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The current version is better and entirely cleaar. Can you point to the policy that says we need to write for "an average English-speaking teenager"? - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No policy I can think of, just a bunch of guidelines, info pages, explanatory essays and the like. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Really? Can you point me to the guidelines that say that? I'd be interested to read them. (Don't worry about essays - they mean nothing, but I'd be interested to see the guidelines). - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know offhand which is in what category, but the ones that come immediately to mind are WP:AUDIENCE, WP:TERSE, WP:ONEDOWN (for technical articles, but I think it's good advice for all articles), and WP:PERFECT. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so really there’s nothing that says to write for "an average English-speaking teenager". It doesn’t surprise me that’s the case, as it’s a rather dubious position to hold. I asked my 15-year-old daughter to read the sentence in question which she grasped straight away without effort. When I explained why I was asking, she wondered if all Wikipedia editors are really that patronising about teenagers. I could only apologise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A general technique for increasing understandability is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. Teenagers, typically, are readers with a secondary school background or some undergraduate background. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Something of a straw man, given the guideline is about writing technical articles. I’m not sure a biography of a writer can be classified as such. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Really, you're not sure? I'm sure: a biography is not a technical article. I'm also sure that Wikipedia biographies should be written for a lay audience, aka one with only a secondary school level of education at most, aka an average English-speaking teenager. YMMV. Levivich (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Well now I’m wondering why you made such a an extended point about a guideline that has nothing to do with the matter in hand. All rather odd. Anyway, as I’ve already said, my 15-year-old thought it was clear and obvious. She is a member of ‘a lay audience, aka one with only a secondary school level of education’. This isn’t even a necessary test, as we as a project don’t aim our writing at that level. What is here, however, at least passes that test. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

What? You're wondering why? The answer is: because you asked. I think it's odd that you think it's odd that I answered the direct questions you put to me. Anyway, if you go back and read my original comment, you'll notice I said nothing about policies or guidelines or essays; it was you who asked me to educate you, so I tried. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I talked about the extended point you made. Your original argument about writing for teenagers was a dubious one (and rather patronising too). That’s what I was after clarification on, and it’s all a bit too tenuous. The good thing is that the current version (which has the consensus of two community review processes behind it) is clear, correct and understandable by a member of ‘a lay audience, aka one with only a secondary school level of education’. Hopefully this will bring this particular interaction to a close. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I said average teenager. Surely, your daughter's reading comprehension is above average. Levivich (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for a discussion about my daughter, but it is an example that a member of ‘a lay audience, aka one with only a secondary school level of education’ can easily understand this. Personally I think we write for adults in this encyclopaedia. Simple Wiki is around for people who can't understand the prose, but regardless of all this, the current text is still clear and easily understandable. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I would tell her that it's patronizing about average English-speakers, more than about teenagers. —Antonissimo (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's grammatically correct, I agree that the original wording should be changed. Stacking two Bad Things makes a sentence overloaded and harder to parse. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Simple Wikipedia writes "Born in Guildford, the third son of a British magistrate based in Hong Kong, Wodehouse" at simple:P.G._Wodehouse. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That was copied from enwiki by an IP in 2022 (without attribution) and clearly doesn't meet simplewiki's expectations. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite happy to make the alteration if a consensus to do so is established here. If wishing to pursue, please be sure to seek the input of all the peer reviewers and the reviewers at FAC. Tim riley talk 08:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the simple, straightforward text we have, though 'spent happy teenage years' is question-begging (was he unhappy before spending his teens at Dulwich? Why highlight his teens? He once stated that his infancy was a happy one) It was in Wodehouse's character to recall his past, from early childhood on, as a continuously happy one, though familiarity with several biographies will give any lover of his works ample material to suspect that his defense of happiness had to cope with parental neglect or insouciance, humourless aunts and nannies, brotherly bullying and tight-fisted spinsters. The only nice people in those various milieux were, invariably, the gentle class of servants, as his numerous novels underline.

He certainly throve at Dulwich, for two reasons. The intermediary schools of Croydon, and Elizabeth College on Guernsey, afforded wide open spaces to rollick abroad away from the close world of old and eccentric caretakers, something which, in the larger fields of Dulwich college, gave him a settled freedom. Secondly, the society of elders was replaced by hundreds of sportive peers his own age. At the dame school his weekly allowance was a couple of pennies given on the undertaking that they would be dispensed to the needy and unfortunate. At Dulwich, his dad offered his sons 5 bob for taking six wickets, and a half a quid if they scored a half a century with the bat. (Yep, just killing time here until the 4th Test in Sydney starts).Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. From memory I think Usborne and Donaldson suggest that his childhood was nearly as blighted by ghastly aunts as was Bertie Wooster's. I can't recall what McCrum, Green, Jason or French say about it. But my impression (unconfirmed by any rereading in recent weeks) is that PGW put particular emphasis on the happiness of his teenage schooldays. I have all those books to hand and can research once more if pressed, but I hope I shan't be – too many other things to do. Tim riley talk 12:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

No. I'll happily defer to your superior expertise. I checked my shelves this morning and see that I'd read forty years ago a mere 25 books by or on Wodehouse, including three biographies or introductions. I'd forgotten I had Donaldson, but, from the above, appear to have remembered it well, see now pp.43ff.The contrast with Kipling, Saki, Edgar Wallace and Somerset Maugham, all with very similar childhoods of utter neglect (pp.45f) is instructive. Uniquely, among them, he didn't allow the then widespread (in his class) failure to be loved as a child to get at him. Mind you, he also asserted that he felt he fell short of becoming a great writer because he claimed he had suffered no sense of pain as a youth, if my memory is correct. Well, he was a great writer, though in a highly restrictive vein, in the inimitable giftedness of his prose not least, but evidently fell short (in his own estimation) of true greatness, because he learnt to shut off frustrations and disappointments by using his fantasy to convert the sheer silliness of people into comedy (disarming any potential personal anger) by an amiable tolerance for the hapless nitwits of his own social class. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Nishidani, "What's that expression of yours, Jeeves?" "Rem acu tetigisti, sir?" Just so: I think you hit the bullseye with "he was a great writer, though in a highly restrictive vein". Best wishes, Tim riley talk 14:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia

PNieuwenhuizen You have now inserted unsourced trivia into the article three times. This goes against several policies and guidelines. There is also a consensus against the inclusion of the information here. Could you please explain why you think this should be included? - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@SchroCat I'm guessing you meant Talk:P. G. Wodehouse/Archive 3#Emsworth? RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I, too, would welcome a cessation of PNieuwenhuizen's edit warring (and disproportionate focus on minor factoid). Tim riley talk 12:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith, I did, but the thread was archived. I've unarchived it so PNieuwenhuizen can read it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I know nothing about Wodehouse beyond what I've read here. But, looking at Lord Emsworth, I see it says Wodehouse frequently named his characters after places with which he was familiar with what appears to be a WP:RS. It seems to me that this fact would be appropriate, and surely not (as Tim puts in in Archive 3) "excessive" to add that to the parent article. RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but Wodehouse lived in many, many different places, and does not single out Emsworth in his collected letters. His characters include (off the top of my head) the Earl of Ickenham, Lord Tilbury, Lord Worplesden, Lord Yaxley, Lord Bosham and the Duke of Dunstable. I don't think Wodehouse had any particular connexion with Ickenham, Tilbury, Worplesden, Yaxley, Bosham and Dunstable (and indeed he pinched the dukedom of the last from W. S. Gilbert in Patience, described by Bertie Wooster as "Not at all a bad little show, I thought, though a bit highbrow"). But now you mention it, I'm not sure the adverb in "frequently named his characters after places with which he was familiar" is quite right. "Sometimes" might be nearer the mark. Thoughts welcome on this point. – Tim riley talk 13:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion was to include the one sentence I quoted in green. I don't have easy access to the cited source [Murphy, Norman (1986). In Search of Blandings] so I don't know if "frequently" is true to the source. If it is, then that's the word we should use. If not, then the wording should be adjusted. RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I have Murphy's book to hand: the ipsissima verba are "Place-names from Emsworth and nearby occur frequently in the novels", which isn't quite the same as "Wodehouse frequently named his characters after places with which he was familiar". In point of fact apart from Bosham I can find no other place names from anywhere near Emsworth in Wodehouse novels, and I suspect Colonel Murphy hasn't done his homework properly, but that is mere WP:OR on my part. I think a tweak to Lord Emsworth's article would be a good thing, nonetheless. Tim riley talk 14:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I will leave it to your capable hands to make the appropriate addition. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The last sentence of that sentence in Archive 3 is: Why is stating he loved Emsworth any different to saying he loved Dulwich or New York? Please reconsider. One difference is that the remarks about Dulwich and New York are half a sentence each, and the proposed insertion about Threepwood House is a paragraph. —Antonissimo (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

If it can be better documented, I would urge changing lived in Emsworth, at 6 Record Road, in Threepwood House to lived in Threepwood House, 6 Record Road, Emsworth. —Antonissimo (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)