Talk:Osbert Lancaster

Fair use rationale for Image:OsbertLancaster PocketCartoon.jpg

Image:OsbertLancaster PocketCartoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks!! Being as I am sick and freaking tired of dealing with wankbots and their droid masters, I have instituted a policy of not doing anything in the slightest about image deletion notices. Therefore, if you want the above image to remain, I suggest you hack your way through the cruft and put in the necessary template.Djdaedalus (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Lancaster illustrate Parkinson's Law?

It's not clear that Lancaster illustrated a Parkinson's Law series (was it a series?). Amazon.com turns his name up on a number of C. Northcote Parkinson titles, but most of these have citation errors (such as giving the author as "Northcote"), and none offer a "Search inside" feature or a book cover image for verification. I suspect that some of them simply saw the title, looked it up on Amazon or elsewhere, and miscopied some information, resulting in Lancaster being overattributed. Parkinson's Law is still in print, but I can't find an in-print edition with Lancaster as illustrator. For now, I'm substituting a Parkinson/Lancaster title In-laws & Outlaws for "Parkinson's Law series", after finding [this book-cover image]. Note that it has the word "law" in it (twice!) which might help explain some confusion. Nevertheless, the book Parkinson's Law went through a number of editions, propably including some earlier British ones, so it's possible Lancaster illustrated some of these before the American illustrator, Robert C. Osborn, became Parkinson's main illustrative collaborator. I'd welcome any help with this problem. Yakushima (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, despite SOME name resemblance ("Osbert", "Osborn") and maybe even some style resemblance, I'm forced to admit a near-certainty that Osbert Lancaster did illustrate at least one edition of Parkinson's Law. (Alternative hypothesis: the NY Times Book Review would get it wrong, when they had a choice between mentioning an illustrator far better known to Americans versus a British one not likely to be as well known.) I've added some citations for support, and added another Parkinson book he illustrated. Anyway, this has just been a drive-by shooting while on my way to writing the article for Robert C. Osborn. I hope I haven't done too much damage. ;-) Yakushima (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he did. I just found a contemporary review in the Times Digital Archive.

All hard-worked high executives in business in the public service should make compulsory reading of Parkinson's Law (122pp, John Murray, 12s 6d). Professor C Northcote Parkinson's text and Mr Osbert Lancaster's pictures work perfectly in team to give a witty, satirical, and fundamentally serious tract for the times.

- Reviews, In Brief, The Times, Thursday, Apr 10, 1958; pg. 11; Issue 54121

According to Times review, Thursday, May 12, 1960; pg. 17; Issue 54769, he also illustrated the sequel, The Law and the Profits. Looking at Google Books, it looks as if Lancaster illustrated the John Murray British edition and Osborn the Houghton Mifflin US editions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Commas

relocated from User talk:JHunterJ

Would you show me where in Fowler, Gowers or other reputable BrE style guide your prescription "don't use a comma in a list of two prepositional phrases" is mentioned? Looks like an AmE superstition to me. I haven't met it in English usage. Tim riley talk 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you show me in them where is specifies using a comma in a list of two? Neither BrE nor AmE do that, AFAIK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If you will kindly answer my question I will then look into yours. After you.... Tim riley talk 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It is my understanding that style guides typically specify when to use punctuation, and do not exhaustively, list, when, not, to. So, for instance, the end of the previous sentence is wrong because there is no guidance to put commas there, rather than there being guidance not to. So, essentially, no, no, after you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But here's one. "The trick is to identify those situations so as not to use the comma in places where it really should not be." and "1. To separate the elements in a list of three or more items." (emphasis added). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your understanding of how style guides work is a novel one. Fowler et al do not tell us to do what is normally done: they give guidance when people are apt to go astray. Take, for example, the confusion between "flaunted" and "flouted". Fowler made no mention of either word in the first edition of Modern English Usage (1926), presumably because people didn't then mix them up, but by the 1960s Gowers felt it necessary to lay down the law good and proper in the second edition (1965), and in the third edition Burchfield and in the current edition Butterfield, weigh in. If seeking the view of Fowler, Gowers et al on points on which they do not pronounce it is simplicity itself to look and see what their own practice was. I have just opened the second edition of MEU at random: it opened at "noun", in the article on which we have, from a quick skim through, two prepositional phrases separated by a comma and a conjunction at two points. See for yourself if you don't believe me. That said, I am quite aware that usage changes. You will nowhere find in Fowler mention of the irritating AmE comma in "On Monday, I went shopping", but I am told by a schoolmaster here that this usage is now being taught to our primary school children, alas. Your usage may yet prevail, but I don't think it has yet. As the PR and FAC reviewers didn't boggle at my punctuation I think we should stick with it. Tim riley talk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your understanding of how the PR and FAC review process work is a novel one. They don't bless everything they don't mention. It is still your turn to show me where it specifies using a comma in a list of two. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just pointed to two examples of it in Fowler! I have some slight understanding of the FAC process, having been through it more than forty times. Et toi? I'm trying to be conciliatory here, but you aren't making it easy. Tim riley talk 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that I have finally managed to locate the comma concerned in our tiny diff view, I'm with Tim on this. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See also MOS:COMMA. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Seen. Tim riley talk 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)