User talk:Dabbler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved contents to Archive 3

Meat Pie[edit]

I reverted again. For one thing, the fact that it contains unref'd assertions is absolutely no justification for adding more unref'd assertions. For another, the claim about French and Italian pastry cooks *is* ref'd-- adding the English to it makes it unref'd and probably less accurate. PepperBeast (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we were both involved with over enthusiastic reverting. I was not too concerned about the deletion of English from the development of pastry section but thought that the removal of UK from the lede section about the popularity of pies was rather excessive given the wide range of pies available there and took the remark about the lack of references to refer to that as well. As the other countries had no references too, I thought that unnecessary. Dabbler (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RV POV comment[edit]

Hello Dabbler, I am not clear why you removed the last part of this sentence "This novel references actual events as any historical novel ought." from a couple of the Patrick O'Brian novels where the plots depart from chronological time. POV means point of view, right? All eleven books in that portion of the series of 20 that make no reference to a specific year include this same sentence, unless you are rapidly removing it. (6 do link to years, 11 do not, 3 do) These are historical novels. Anyway, POV makes no sense to me as to the reason for changing that sentence. Besides cutting out the back end of the sentence, do you have a better idea? I clicked to watch your page so I will look for a reply here. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to that paragraph drew my attention to the phrase and I admit I had not checked the other articles but I will.
It is a point of view that historical fiction "ought" to contain historical events, the key word is "ought", it is not a fact or law of nature. If it is written down somewhere that a historical novel "must" contain historical incidents, then we should reference that rule, otherwise it is only an opinion. A novel can be set in a recognisable historical period but not mention a single historical incident, for example a Regency Georgette Heyer type romance novel could be considered a historical novel but not mention anything historic just use period detail to set the story in the past. Dabbler (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Georgette Heyer is categorized as a writer of historical romance in the Wikipedia article about her, and not in historical fiction, so she seems not the best example. My remark was meant to be tautology, and in line with the article in Wikipedia on historical fiction, historical novels, and the reviews of this series by O'Brian. Controversy arises in that category (historical fiction) when it is not true to history, so that is not my judgment, which is apparently what you meant by POV. Laws of nature have nothing to do with this point, as genres in fiction change (e.g., historical mystery) as new books are written. The point needing emphasis on the difference in the eleven novels is the lack of mentions of dates, and sequence of voyages taking more years than were left on the historical timeline. The novels, per the writing of others about them, do not deviate from accurate historical detail (the reviews praise the accuracy of the historical detail for those eleven and the rest of series equally). So, this author is for historical accuracy, and that needs to be emphasized, and that is not opinion. As you simply edited out, and did not replace, I will work out another phrase to make the point. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your kind words, much appreciated. I have had a fair amount of computer hardware problems since you gave me a barn star, so I am too long in thanking you. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Midland silo mural.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Midland silo mural.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick O'Brian[edit]

Thanks for your improvements to Patrick O'Brian. You copy edited the statement that O'Brian said about himself in the 1994 book of essays, to be firmer, more trustworthy than the words I left in (a mix of my own and what was already there). I wrote something on this in the talk page for the O'Brian article, when can one believe his direct words? The mixture of true and false statements he put out to give himself his new life as O'Brian, and not Russ, were made by him. A couple of paragraphs in the Horowitz article show some true, he did lose his mother at a young age, some false, he did not attend the Sorbonne. What is the reason to rely on his statements when fame and so many reporters were pressing on him in his seventies? I do not know the answers to my own questions, but I would be more satisfied if someone came up with a British or French military record of his role in either the French resistance or some other arm of British military intelligence. I did not read about the previously undisclosed early life until this century, so I was not so upset as many were when the information was first revealed. It seems a logical story to me. A young child with a terminal illness, that strains a marriage so much, that many break on that account. The ones that do not break, are often less than before, as parents blame themselves, but do not come out and say it directly -- or did in the 1950s and certainly in the 1910s. It is very sad. Starting a new life after the war, that does not seem extreme either. Unusual, but authors take pen names. He changed his name legally and began again. Also in that Horowitz article is a description of O'Brian by one of his editors, and that sounds a lot like the string of adjectives that Lanchester provides based on stepson Tolstoy's book. Well, I am not sure how interested you are in O'Brian, or how long it will take to fill in the career more than the brouhaha from 1998 that left so many bad feelings, distracting folks from important questions, like is he a literary author, or that skanky term, genre writer? Guess I would not make a good investigative reporter for a topic like that -- I would not have hunted, or if the material had been dropped in my lap, I would consider release after the author died. O'Brian's writing skills are on the page for us to judge. End of rant. What do you think about it all? And more to the point, can that article get a lot better, possibly B level? --Prairieplant (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I definitely take anything O'Brian said or wrote about himself with a significant pinch of salt. He was not above misleading people or allowing people to mislead themselves about his past without any correction. However, I consider the body of his work to transcend any personal failings he may have had as a human being. I have actually met Dean King (before he wrote the biography) and liked him. He was a true fan of O'Brian's writing and I think was upset and disappointed by what he discovered when he first started researching the biography.
I also am one of those who consider O'Brian's work to be more than mere genre fiction, though whether it could be considered high literature I am not sure, I think he is too accessible and story based. In that way he more resembles the great 19th century authors than those acclaimed in these modern days. I think O'Brian would have agreed with that assessment. Dabbler (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Grain of salt accepted. Maybe I should add that other quote from Horowitz, to make Tolsroy's work seem closer too the truth. Will ponder that. The great 19th century writers are considered literature, right? I have never made the distinction of high literature, not sure what that means. I suppose there is the issue of what sort of "high literature" is written by other authors right now. It is funny that you say he is too accessible, when so many critics mention the nautical terms, finding them inaccessible. Story based, is that a bad thing? Ah well, I am not a literature major, so I do not know all the ways books slip into "literature". I wondered if the brouhaha has stopped critics, reviewers, etc. from deciding the merits of his work now, wit some time since he died. Meaning, besides the Tolstoy and King biographies, is anyone writing about these books? I look often for reviews, but have not stumbled on any new ones. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Swallows and Amazons TV series[edit]

You asked whether I had a citation for the music in the 1963 Swallow and Amazons TV series. I don't have an actual Radio Times page, but my written out list of credits includes Alfred Elms for the Music. At the time I recorded the episodes (sound only of course) and edited the result down into a 90 minute adaptation. It opens with the Elms semi-nautical theme music, though it's possible this was actually taken from the closing credits (to get the full theme). Certainly all the background music is by Elms.

I would have thought it very unlikely that different music was used for the opening titles; I did wonder whether whoever credited Butterworth was getting confused with the later TV series; the same claim is made elsewhere in Wikipedia - and I've amended that.

FYI there is a brief compilation of clips at

Edit - I've found a credits page at the BFI who have the first episode - - but no composer credit. To complicate matters, I've written Alfred Elms in my notes, but more research turns up an Albert Elms who wrote music for TV though his credits in IMDB don't include Swallows and Amazons (probably because their listing for it doesn't credit the music either). Quite probably I wrote this down incorrectly - it's unlikely there were both an Albert and an Alfred Elms - so I'm changing the note to Albert I'm certain it was somebody Elms anyway, and certainly not Butterworth.

I've got a more complete cast list than is in the note but I don't know whether any more detail is wanted, nor am I quite clear about how to make the entries, so I'll list the case here and you can add them if you want to

Captain Flint - John Paul; Mrs. Walker - Mary Kenton; John - David Lott; Susan - Siobhan Taylor; 'Kitty' - Susan George; Roger - Shane Youger; Nancy - Amada Coxell; Peggy - Paula Boyd


RFWilmut (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't doubting your edit, but I think that if we have had incorrect information for so long, to avoid questioning it would be nice to have a reference. I will look at the section and decide whether more cast members are necessary. I know Wikipedians don't think IMDB is a reliable reference because it can also be edited by people just like Wikipedia, rather ironic! Dabbler (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You could just cut the Gordian Knot and remove the reference to the music altogether - it's arguable that it's a bit too much information in the context of the notes. I'm afraid the only ways to get an actual reference would be to go to the British Film Institute and get a screening of their copy of Episode 1, or to go to the BBC Written Archives centre at Reading and look at the Programmes As Broadcast sheet for the day (would cost money to get in).

RFWilmut (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A contact who is one of the Arthur Ransome Literary Executors has confirmed that the composer and conductor was Albert Ems according to the credits at the end of the recording they possess of the series. Unfortunately, that is not a reliable source to be referenced as it is not publicly available. I think we can let Albert stay and see if anyone challenges him. Dabbler (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If I might suggest, the page could be left as is, but in it seems a little odd to credit the composer but only two cast and not the director, and in any case it's only a note with a reference to the other page. You might want to remove the composer and perhaps just credit the director (Peter Saunders) instead. All that can be referenced in the BBC Genome page I linked to above. I'll leave it to you to make any changes if you think fit.

RFWilmut (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made your suggested changes and fixed the BFI reference which was broken. Dabbler (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Dabbler, I have not used Talk before so I hope I am doing this correctly. Let me know please. I agree with your removing the Trampoline revision that was made recently. It seemed more like an advertisement. If someone wants to talk about safety standards, probably a new article should me created. Otherwise, Trampoline will be too long.Triffis 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triffis (talkcontribs)

Hi Triffis, You successfully left me a message, though you should use ~~~~ at the end which automatically leaves a link to your name and the date/time of your post. I could either reply on my own Talk page or else I can post on yours. In this case I have done both. Dabbler (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)