Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Collaborations

There were a number of Sullivan Songs with Gilbert texts. I added the three that I know of. Are there other collaborations? If so, they should be added. --Ssilvers 17:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier (you deleted my comments), there were only two or three songs he wrote with Gilbert outside the Savoy Operas. You have all of them listed. This is confirmed by appendix 3 of Arthur Sullivan: A Victorian Musician, by Arthur Jacobs. Shsilver 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Effect of copyright expiration

The current edit says:

The expiration of copyright restrictions may have aided this continuing popularity.

I don't know of a citable source for this statement. My sense is that it is incorrect. The G&S copyrights expired in 1961. Are the G&S operas are more popular today than they were in 1961? Probably not; at best, they have held their own, but I'm not even sure of that. Since 1961, there are probably more G&S companies that have disbanded (or broadened their repertories) than new ones formed.

To be sure, there have been positive developments. Mainstream opera companies now include G&S in their repertory occasionally, but this development can be traced to the closure of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company in 1982, not to the copyright expiration. Before 1982, non-D'Oyly Carte professional productions were rare.

The annual International Gilbert & Sullivan Festival is also a positive development, but as it has been in existence only since 1994, it can't be a consequence of the copyright expiration 33 years earlier. [Marc Shepherd]

The point I am trying to make is that the G&S works' being out of copyright gives them a slight advantage over Broadway musicals and other musical theatre works where royalties have to be paid. I just put in a clarification on this point. [Sam Silvers]

OK, it is too wordy, but I have tried to rework the "effect of copyright expiration" to clarify the points you two have been making. Perhaps one or both of you can make it flow more smoothly after a third party has mixed it up a bit. Pzavon 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I simplified the copyright statements and took out some of the stuff that I thought was too technical for a general introduction. I don't think it needs a citation any more.Ssilvers 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks, Sam. [And by the way, remember that four tildas (~) in a row will automatically produce a dated signature.] Pzavon 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think I finally got it to say what I really meant. OK, guys? -- Ssilvers 06:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the same concerns with the statement that I did before. On the whole, the G&S operas are probably less popular and less well-known to the general public than they were in 1961. All things being equal, their non-copyright status is a point in their favour. But the statement that "This may have helped G&S survive fierce competition, especially at the amateur level," is entirely speculative. Although I'm not flagging it for {{cleanup}}, I think an improvement would be to cite Ian Bradley's book, which gives a balanced view of both what has gone wrong, and what has gone right, since 1961. Marc Shepherd 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have that Bradley book. Could you please take a quick look and see if you can find a cite? Thanks --Ssilvers 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Carte vs D'Oyly Carte

It is a subtle point, but the impresario's last name was "Carte," not "D'Oyly Carte." Once his full name is introduced, further references to the man should be just "Carte." Gilbert's letters to him were "Dear Carte." The literature is overwhelmingly consistent in referring to him as "Carte," not "D'Oyly Carte." His granddaughter was "Miss Carte."

However, the performing company called itself the "D'Oyly Carte Opera Company," and therefore it is correct to use "D'Oyly Carte" when referring to the company. (There can be times where it is ambiguous whether the company or the man is meant, but where it is certain that the man is being referred to, it's just "Carte.") Marc Shepherd 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential duplication

There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and the individual articles on Gilbert and Sullivan. It would probably be appropriate if material related to the collaboration were here. The biographical articles could focus on the creators' backgrounds and accomplishments as individuals. Their collaboration would be described only briefly in the bio articles, making reference to this article where the details would reside. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Beggar's Opera record

I've just done a pretty substantial rewrite of the historical section. There was a shocking number of outright errors. I've left in the claim that the run of Trial by Jury set a record previously held by The Beggar's Opera, but I have never heard this before, and would be curious about the source. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Five days later, nobody can come up with a source, so I'm dropping it. Marc Shepherd 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Patter Song and the "Patter" Character

Did G&S invent the patter song? This musical development was widely imitated elsewhere. --Robert Merkel

The patter song has a long history before G&S. Often in G&S, a patter song is used to introduce a comic character: "When I, good friends was called to the bar," or "My name is John Wellington Wells" or "If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am." In Mozart's Die Zauberflöte, the comic lead, Papageno introduces himself with "Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja." The most famous of all operatic patter songs is, of course "Largo al factotum," in which Figaro introduces himself in Rossini's Barbiere di Siviglia. Both of these examples were old standards long before either Gilbert or Sullivan was born." --Larry Cantrell

Although there is quite a bit of patter used by in Mozart and others, as well as in musicals, I think it can fairly be said that no one else used the patter song quite as extensively as G&S. Also, most G&S shows have a comic lead that some refer to as the "patter baritone" who usually has at least one and often two or more patter songs, and who is usually the most central character in G&S operas (e.g., The Learned Judge, John Wellington Wells, Sir Joseph Porter, the Major General, Bunthorne, the Lord Chancellor, Ko-Ko, Robin Oakapple and Jack Point). There is a long tradition of the portrayers of these comic character roles singing with a light "character voice". If you listen the the recordings of the Doyly Carte Opera Company prior to 1982, you will hear mostly Martyn Green and John Reed singing these roles in a character voice, although Peter Pratt and George Baker, who also recorded these roles arguably sang more full-voice. In any case, I believe that these roles should be sung differently than, say Captain Corcoran, Gosvenor or Mountararat. There is now a 'pedia entry for patter song. --Ssilvers 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of the songs referenced here and in the article are not patter songs, in the sense that they must be sung so rapidly that clear articulation is difficult. The Nightmare Song, in particular, is quite deliberately paced. Second, ganging self-intro songs a la Papageno's with patter songs muddies the category badly. Finally, "patter passages" abound throughout G & S in other forms, such as the trio ending, To sit in solemn silence in a dull dark, dock/ In a pestilential prison with a life-long lock/ Awaiting the sensation of a short sharp shock/ From a cheap and chippy chopper on a big black block. Jim Stinson 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a patter song "must be sung so rapidly that clear articulation is difficult." I think your concept of the "patter song" is too narrow. See the definition at patter song for a better articulation of the category. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was precisely the too-inclusive definition at patter song that I was questioning. The American Heritage Dictionary's second definition of patter is: "2. Glib rapid speech, as of an auctioneer, salesperson, or comedian." Figaro is glib and rapid; Papageno is not.Jim Stinson 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I think that the deliberate, rhymic recitation of lyrics to a simple, lightly orchestrated melody, with generally only one syllable on each note, and at a moderately fast tempo, such as in the Nightmare Song (which, by the way, should be taken at a rapid enough pace to make it tongue-tripping in places) or the Judge's Song, must be included in the category. (BTW, I think that some recordings of these numbers are simply too slow and fool people into not realizing that some of these numbers are supposed to go quite fast. Listen to the older DOC recordings, and I think you'll see what I mean.) Otherwise, you have a tiny category and you orphan a large group of songs that does not belong anywhere else. So just because one reference gives a narrow definition is not, IMO, convincing. Where would you put the more "deliberate", rhythmic patter songs or the "this is how I became a _______" pattersongs? I think that describing them as different parts of that genre makes the most sense. I think the patter song article makes a clear enough distinction between the "blindlingly fast" ones and the others, and believe me, I have thought much about the subject (having performed the Grossmith roles for over 25 years). -- Ssilvers 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, what the hey -- they're called patter songs and it would be pedantic to subdivide them. As for pace, I use the London FFRR 1949-1951 recordings (remastered in a 10 CD set) plus a vinyl disk by Martyn Green of many of the patter songs, including some (like, When I Good Friends Was Called to the Bar) that he never sang in performance. BTW: if I am very very good and get to heaven, then I too shall spend 25 years performing all those roles. Jim Stinson 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken Quote

Could someone create some link between the text The article by H.L. Mencken written in 1910 makes for interesting reading. and the URL at the bottom of the page? I'm not quite sure how to harmonise footnotes with the external links section. Is there some established procedure for this? --fvw 10:51, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

If the sentence needs a pointer to the external links section to make its meaning plain, then it's a failure as a sentence and ought to be amended or scrapped. I have attempted the former remedy. --Paul A 03:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Incidentally, might the whole thing not be better situated in The Mikado anyway?)

Having finally read the damn article, it's not even all that interesting (not to mention 'interesting' not being very encyclopedia-like or NPOV). I've just removed the sentence entirely, the external link should be enough. Thanks for the advice. --fvw 12:01, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Private Lives

This page is very good, but what of the men as people? Their backgrounds, youth, education, politics???

Wasn't one gay and the other jewish or somthing?

Cheers...

Neither of them was gay or Jewish, but they did have private lives. I wonder if thier personal lives might be better covered in separate articles on each of them. This article seems to do quite well as a piece on their artistic collaboration. Pzavon 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To Sir or not to Sir, That is the Question

I see that Proteus removed the "Sir" from Gilbert's name in the first sentence, but not from Sullivan's. Realizing that Gilbert received his knighthood much later than Sullivan did, but that, nevertheless, Sullivan wrote some of their joint works before he received his knighthood, what is the most appropriate way to identify the two together when speaking of their entire joint output? Should both be "Sir", just Sullivan, or neither? Pzavon 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "neither" is the most appropriate, and I have just removed the "Sir" from Sullivan's name. Even after Sullivan was knighted, he was always credited as just plain "Arthur Sullivan" when he was named as a composer. This is evident from any libretto or vocal score published after 1882. Likewise, even after Gilbert was knighted, as an author he continued to be credited as just plain "W. S. Gilbert."

After they were knighted, Gilbert and Sullivan would use "Sir William" or "Sir Arthur" in social situations, and when appearing as a conductor the composer would be credited as "Sir Arthur Sullivan." Marc Shepherd 12:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What they were credited as is irrelevant — it's what they were known as that counts. (And Gilbert wasn't just knighted later, he was knighted after they stopped working together (and in fact after Sullivan had died).) Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was by their own choice that they were credited the way I have described. As Peter Zavon noted above, some of their operas were written before either man was knighted; and, in the end, both were knighted. In their capacity as writers, they were "known as" W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. It is simply incoherent to refer to one of them as "Sir...", and the other without "Sir...."

There is a further irony here. Sullivan was knighted for his services to serious music, and most definitely not for his works with Gilbert. To the contrary, his contemporaries viewed him as wasting his time on comic opera. Gilbert, on the other hand, was knighted for his stage works. To omit "Sir" for the collaborator who actually earned his knighthood writing for the stage, while using it for the collaborator who did not, is doubly peculiar. Marc Shepherd 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I LOVE Wikipedia. This discussion is even more narrowly focused than discussions on Savoynet. I certainly don't know what's customary in referring to knighted people, but just to throw in my oar, I'd put the Sir in for both, because if I were reading this encyclopedia entry and had no familiarity with the two men, I would not know that they had been knighted at all. By putting in the "Sir" here and a cross reference to their Bio pages, you can put the full explanation of when and why they were knighted on their bio pages and people will be able to easily understand it. Anyhow, I leave it to you guy to decide whether to put the Sirs back in or not. --Ssilvers 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Until a few days ago, it was "Sir W. S. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan," and I didn't really have any problem with that. It is also "Sir" W. S. Gilbert and "Sir" Arthur Sullivan on their respective biography pages. However, on the pages for each of the individual operas, they are just W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. I don't have a problem with that either, because they themselves chose to be credited that way. Marc Shepherd 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The collaborators' names

The current edit gives the collaborators' names as W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, which is how the two men chose to be credited for all of their works. (Very early in his career, Sullivan was sometimes credited as "Arthur S. Sullivan," but he quickly dropped the middle initial, probably because he didn't want to broadcast that his initials were ASS.)

The two men's biography pages give their full names – William Schwenck Gilbert and Arthur Seymour Sullivan – but on the page devoted to their collaboration, I think it is best to call them what they called themselves. And certainly, it is difficult to see the logic of the immediately preceding edit, which referred to them as W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Seymour Sullivan. Marc Shepherd 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, guys!I am not the last word on British titles, but I do know that you never use the title "Sir" in front of initials, as in "Sir W. S. etc"...it would be "Sir William" only. Since Gilbert didn't go by that name in his working life, it makes sense not to use it when referring to his work. Elise

Delete links to performing societies? Please vote!

I just added an "External link" to the G&S Archive's performing societies page, which is pretty comprehensive. Marc and I previously discussed deleting all the individual performing groups's links in this entry, since it is not nearly as comprehensive and just a random sample, not very representative of the scores of societies out there, and, IMO, it would be better for people to just go to the Archive link.

Although Marc and I have agreed that deleting these would be preferable for the entry, I am loathe to delete all this material unless there is a clear consensus on the issue. Please weigh in.

I am in favor of deleting them, in favor of the link to the Archive – which provides a more comprehensive list than we have here.

I would also favor deleting the list of "Well-known Gilbert & Sullivan actors." There are a lot of people with Wikipedia articles who sang some Gilbert & Sullivan at some point in their careers. The list is getting unwieldy, and people will keep adding additional examples. (Beverly Sills sang a bunch of G&S early in her career; she is not yet listed, but surely someone will think of it eventually. Lillian Russell sang G&S too. There, that's two additions without even breaking a sweat.) And I question just how "well known" some of these people really are. For mere "lists," a Wikipedia category would handle it a lot better, and would prevent this article from being so long. Marc Shepherd 16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think all those people are pretty well-know, or at least well-known to G&S fans. Olson and Ross are probably the least known among the living ones, I would guess, but Ross, at least, is legitimately "notable". By all means, transfer the list of people to a Wiki-list, with a link, but I wouldn't just delete it. By the way, I would add Sills and Russell to such a list. Ssilvers 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of deleting the list of performing groups in favor of the link to the performing groups list in the G&S Archive. Perhaps a separate article about non-professional performing groups would be appropriate, too. There is, after all, at least one book on the subject.

Converting the list of Well-known G&S Actors to a Wikipedia subCategory under G&S also seems a good idea to me. The G&S Category itself seems to me to be rather full. A good many of the actors already have articles included in the G&S category and it would merely be a matter of changing the category entries in those articles. Then, of course, there is question of whether to leave non-actor personallities in the G&S Category or move them ot another subcategory of "G&S People" or some such. The several D'Oyly Cartes, DCOC conductors and such come to mind in this regard. Pzavon 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I have gone ahead and done it. Ssilvers 04:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Project Musicals

A prior edit added Gilbert and Sullivan to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre, which I have "un-done". Gilbert and Sullivan is already part of the opera project. The description of the Musical Theatre project says that it excludes operettas. I assume it excludes operas too. And it is pretty much widely agreed that the G&S works are either operas or operettas, but that they are certainly not musicals. Marc Shepherd 03:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

G&S works are NOT operas, comic or otherwise (although Yeomen comes close) - they definitely ARE operettas - and while not musical comedies, Pirates and Pinafore, in particular, are obvious "proto-musicals". G&S themselves denied the obvious because they didn't want to be classed too closely to French and German operetta, which had a "low" reputation for the sometimes immoral plotlines. IF they belong in the musicals project it would be because all later operettas and musical comedies (musicals) owe them so much. Any history of the modern musical that didn't have a substantial section on G&S would be a joke. Soundofmusicals 13:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any published source for the statement that "G&S themselves denied the obvious...." It's an interesting hypothesis, though at the moment unsourced.

I start from the proposition that a work is what its writer says it is. Whatever their motivation for doing so, Gilbert and Sullivan decided to call their works operas, and their contemporaries overwhelmingly adopted this terminology. It's really not up to me to say, "Sorry, you naughty Victorians, but you've no right to call those pieces 'operas'." Marc Shepherd 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the musical theatre article, G&S is described there. I think all that Marc is noting above (in this rather ancient thread) is that G&S is not part of the "scope" of WP:MUSICALS. The WP:G&S project is intended to cover G&S articles on WP comprehensively. -- Ssilvers 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Recategorization

Last night (July 7 2006) user Paul A launched a massive recategorization of the Gilbert & Sullivan-related pages. Where there is a subject with multiple active contributors, it is generally considered poor form to undertake such a fundamental revision without gaining consensus from the community. I have reverted the majority of these edits and launched this topic, where the decision to recategorize (or not) may be considered.

Paul A's proposed hierarchy went something like this

Gilbert and Sullivan

People Associated with Gilbert and Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan Performers

Works by W. S. Gilbert

Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas

Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert

Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas

Works by Arthur Sullivan

Operas by Arthur Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas

Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan

Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas

Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

In general, it is not considered helpful to have categories with only a small number of entrants. The reader has to go digging through multiple levels of a hierarchy, only to find that there's not much content there.

In that vein, Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas seems like a bad idea. The only G&S song with its own article today is the Major-General's Song, and I doubt there will be many others.

The categories Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert and Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan seem to me similarly misguided. I doubt that there will be very many songs by either man that will justify their own articles. Those that do can be categorized under Works by W. S. Gilbert or Works by Arthur Sullivan.

(If we're going to be that granular, then eventually we'd need Oratorios by Arthur Sullivan, Hymns by Arthur Sullivan, Incidental Music by Arthur Sullivan, Plays by W. S. Gilbert, and so forth. It gets to be ridiculous.)

The category People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan is a mouthful, and I am not sure that it is necessary—there aren't that many of them. Paul A made some changes that struck me as highly peculiar, such as putting Arthur Sullivan and W. S. Gilbert into that category, as if they were "associated" with themselves. I reverted that.

The category Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan is another creation not likely to have very many entrants, although I didn't revert the assignment of works to it.

Lastly, I think there might be some value to having a category for the fourteen joint works. Over the years, there has been much debate about what to call their productions — operettas, comic operas, or just plain operas. If there is to be such a category, I suggest using the neutral name "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan," which avoids taking a position on whether they are operas or operettas. (It is worth noting that Gilbert and Sullivan themselves never used the latter term, and neither did most of their contemporaries.)

An alternative would be to create a category "Savoy Operas" for the fourteen G&S operas. Although there are a few "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan" that are not operas (e.g., the songs "Sweethearts" and "The Distant Shore"), these are not likely to generate their own articles. The "Savoy Operas" category might be better, because "Savoy Opera" is also one of the Opera genres.

A simplified hierarchy that is more than adequate for the purpose, and will avoid categories with tiny numbers of entrants, might look like this:

Gilbert and Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan performers

Works by W. S. Gilbert

Works by Arthur Sullivan

Operas by Arthur Sullivan

Works by Gilbert and Sullivan or Savoy Operas

Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

I think that's about all we need, and it's much simpler for both editors and readers to follow. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I've browsed a little more, and I see that the category naming convention for composers' works is "Compositions by [composer]". See Compositions by composer. I would therefore rename "Works by Arthur Sullivan" to "Compositions by Arthur Sullivan". I would thus propose as follows:

Gilbert and Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan performers

Works by W. S. Gilbert

Compositions by Arthur Sullivan

Operas by Arthur Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan Operas or Savoy Operas

Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

Marc Shepherd 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marc about all of the above. As to what to call the 14 G&S operas, I would prefer "Gilbert and Sullivan Operas", because I think that it is more recognizable to more people. Ssilvers 15:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The following categories have been officially proposed for deletion:

• Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas
• Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan
• Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert
• Gilbert and Sullivan operettas

Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 7#Unnecessary Gilbert and Sullivan categories.

The category Category:Works by Arthur Sullivan has been proposed for renaming to Category:Compositions by Arthur Sullivan. Please vote at the same site, just the categories for deletion. Marc Shepherd 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Category:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, as what most people call them. (And I am willing to construct it, if people agree; it would greatly simplify the other cats) Septentrionalis 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Operas by Arthur Sullivan would be just this cat, and Ivanhoe, wouldn't it? Seems a little small. Septentrionalis 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Operas by Arthur Sullivan already exists. It contains 23 works, of which 14 were written with Gilbert, and 9 with other librettists. As noted above, if there is to be a category holding just the G&S works, it should have a NPOV name as to how they are described. I would dispute that "Gilbert and Sullivan operettas" is what "most people" call them. The dominant terms in the literature are "Savoy Operas," "Comic Operas," or "Gilbert and Sullivan Operas." Marc Shepherd 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, G&S called their works "operas". They never called them operettas, so all of these G&S-related articles refer to them as Gilbert and Sullivan operas. Ssilvers 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Including Patience (operetta)? ;-> Septentrionalis 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation names have tended to be assigned by whoever created the article, and no one bothered to move them. Thus, we have Patience (operetta) and Thespis (operetta), but Haddon Hall (opera). No one has bothered to move them, but "operetta" is not consistent with the terminology in the body of each article. Marc Shepherd 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Marc beat me to it, but I was about to note that the name of the Patience article was created over a year ago by someone called Greekmythfan, who wrote: "Regardless of what people may tell you...I'm a person. A Homo sapien." Personally, I think that W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are better sources than Mr. Greekmythfan as to what we should call these works.  ;-) Ssilvers 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all this. If it's any consolation, I didn't mean to be a nuisance; everything I did seemed while I was doing it to be entirely straightforward.

(Looking back, I see part of the problem is that we have different philosophies of categorisation. I look at Category:Gilbert and Sullivan and see a mix of people, places, organisations, and works crying out to be sorted into separate boxes - had I not called it a day where I did, you would have had "Gilbert and Sullivan-related theatres" and "Gilbert and Sullivan performing society" categories to deal with as well.)

I will admit that Category:Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas was overzealous.

But if Category:Operas by Arthur Sullivan - which was not my doing - why not Category:Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan? I did not create anything new there - Category:Songs by musicwriter is well-established (if badly-named). Likewise, Category:Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert is a trivial extension of Category:Songs by lyricist.

Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan is admittedly a mouthful, but it seemed a sensible level of abstraction to have between Category:Gilbert and Sullivan and Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performers. It was meant more as "people associated with the subject 'Gilbert and Sullivan'" than "people associated with the man Gilbert and/or the man Sullivan", hence the inclusion of the men themselves.

On the question of the naming of Category:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, I must point out that every one of the relevant articles is in Category:Operettas, and that they were like that before I started. (I did consider "Savoy Operas" as an alternative, but not all Gilbert and Sullivan operas are Savoy operas, and there are (I gather, although I could not name one) Savoy operas by other hands.)

I hope I've conveyed some idea of where I was coming from. I apologise once more for my enthusiastic mess, and I will endeavour in future to be more of a team player. --Paul A 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Paul A for his comments. I do agree that, as of two days ago, Category:Gilbert and Sullivan was a mish-mash of people, places, works, and organisations, somewhat crying out for further sub-categorisation. I think the only real question, aside from naming issues, is which divisions have enough entrants to justify their own categories. Arthur Sullivan wrote about 80 songs apart from his work in the operas; I just doubt that very many of them will ever have their own Wikipedia articles. In fairness to Paul, I see that some of the "Songs by..." categories have very small numbers of songs in them. Should we resurrect them at some point, I would suggest the shorter names "Songs by W. S. Gilbert" and "Songs by Arthur Sullivan."

The category Operas by Arthur Sullivan, on the other hand, does have a hefty number of works in it: 23. It also rolls up to Wikipedia's Opera project.

We are approaching the point where "Theatres associated with Gilbert and Sullivan" and "Gilbert and Sullivan performing organisations" might make sense (i.e., where there are more than just a few of them). I wouldn't call them performing societies, by the way, as several of the likely entrants in that category aren't "societies."

Wikipedia's "operetta" category is somewhat orphaned; there isn't anybody thinking about the category holistically, as there is for opera. Someone long ago had put all of the Gilbert & Sullivan pieces into the "operetta" category, but they are also in the "opera" category. The Wikipedia template {{opera genres}} lists "Savoy Opera" and "operetta" as distinct categories. This is itself controversial, but it goes to show the lack of a consistent approach.

Since there are 14 "operas" (or whatever you call them) by Gilbert and Sullivan, I definitely think a category is warranted, and the only question is what to call it. Having read all the comments above, I would revert to my earlier suggestion, "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan," as it is consistent with Wikipedia's category naming conventions, and does not favor (or disfavor) anyone's preferred terminology. Marc Shepherd 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

One more comment: "Songs by W. S. Gilbert" and "Songs by Arthur Sullivan", though shorter, have a potential for confusion - existing "Songs by X" categories tend to be for songs where X is responsible for both music and lyrics. --Paul A 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare the (several different) styles in Category:Songs by lyricist.Septentrionalis 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree—not much of a standard. Marc Shepherd 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: This dialog is continuing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Categories.

In particular: Please weigh in here on the question of: A) Should there be a category specifically for the joint works of Gilbert and Sullivan; and B) if so, what should it be called? Marc Shepherd 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

See also cleanup

The article's see also section currently has the following entrants:

• Gilbert and Sullivan performers Links to well-known performers associated with Gilbert and Sullivan
• D'Oyly Carte Opera Company
• Edward German
• Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan
• The International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival, held annually in Buxton, England
• Staveley, Cumbria - a village with a fifty-year G&S tradition
• Comedy on screen
• Light Opera of Manhattan
• American Savoyards

Typically, See also is used for topics not otherwise referenced in the article. D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival are already prominently mentioned within the article's first few paragraphs.

Category:Gilbert and Sullivan is linked at the bottom of the page, and anyone who goes there will quickly find other related topics, such as Light Opera of Manhattan, American Savoyards (both long-defunct performing companies), Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan and Gilbert and Sullivan performers. (Edward German is already part of the former.) Wikipedia readers are used to following category links to find related articles.

Staveley, Cumbria has only a tenuous relationship to the topic (lots of cities and villages have had a Gilbert & Sullivan tradition for fifty years or much longer), and Comedy on screen is unencyclopedic (just look at it).

In short, I think this article's See also section should be trimmed to the essentials or eliminated. Marc Shepherd 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going ahead to take LOOM, American Savoyards and Edward German (since he is included in the next item) off the list, but I think that, as long as the list is short, the other items are OK, even if they can be found another way. This is our "main" article, and I think we should make it easy for newbies to find things. As to Stavely, it's just a fun link, and if the list gets too long, we can take it off. I have no idea what the comedy on screen link is, so I leave that to you. Ssilvers 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that strategy. I removed Staveley, Cumbria and Comedy on screen (both unencyclopedic) and re-ordered the remaining list to put D'Oyly Carte Opera Company on top. Marc Shepherd 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"each of"

I put these words back in. We need to say that after "each of" these shows Sullivan asked to leave the partnership to be clear. If you just say "after 1 and 2 he asked to leave, it sounds like he only tried to leave once, or at least it is ambiguous. I think this is an important part of illustrating Sullivan's basic unhappiness with continuing in the Partnership at this point in his career. It was only his contract that really kept him in it. -- Ssilvers 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed "each of" to "both" (I thought that read better), but I do agree that something is needed there for clarity. Marc Shepherd 03:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "each of" is grammatically incorrect in this usage. Pzavon 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Peter. Please join the WP:G&S Project and contribute to the G&S articles. -- Ssilvers 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not got the available time, at present, to get that deepling involved. Pzavon 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I have rewritten the opening paragraph slightly to better define the phrase "Gilbert and Sullivan," which is a genre of musical theater (should it be theatre?) rather than two people. Feel free to throw whatever brickbats seem appropriate. –Shoaler (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a fundamental shift should be discussed first. I have never heard Gilbert and Sullivan described as "a genre of musical theatre." For one thing, there is a consensus on the WP:G&S project (as well as the Opera project) that Gilbert and Sullivan wrote operas, not musicals. I realize this is debatable, but all of the G&S-related articles describe their works as operas, and it would be a rather significant change to modify them.

Indeed, although the editor who proposed this change altered the topic sentence, references to their works as "operas" remained unaltered throughout the rest of the article.

I also think it's dubious to attach the genre to the authors, rather than to a particular style. I don't think there's any defensible claim that The Mountebanks is in a different genre than The Grand Duke, but it is by Gilbert and Cellier, rather than Gilbert and Sullivan.

I think it's more accurate to describe both as comic operas. "Comic opera" (or arguably "Savoy opera") is the genre, not "Gilbert and Sullivan". Marc Shepherd 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All this has been discussed before, since this is our flagship article. The way the opening paragraph reads now is the subject of considerable discussion and consensus. --Ssilvers 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image size

Can we reduce the Trial-Pin-Sorc image, please? Just a little. (how do you do it, BTW? Thanks. -- Ssilvers 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the "px" arguement. px stands for "pixels" (in width), so increase that number, and it gets bigger, decrease it and it gets smaller. Watch the images: I like to play with shrinking text a bit, changing the size of the window and so on, because it's very easy, if you're trying to put them right next to a relevant bit of text, to make them be bumping up against the next image down. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

What do you think of the idea of keeping the lead (which is very strong), but using the article itself to instead provide 14 1-page or so sections on the creation of each opera? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Each opera's page already has (or should have) that "Background" section. This article should be a historical and artistic discussion and analysis of the most notable information regarding the development of the partnership. More detailed info should go in each opera's article. -- Ssilvers 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Thanks for adding the cites, although I don't think the Connecticut newspaper preview is a very authoritative source for such important statements. I have gone through the intro and reorganized it a little to emphasize the most general, macro issues up front. I think it is pretty logically organized now. IMO, you should strive not to get bogged down in specifics in an intro, like mentioning particular songs. Examples and specifics should go later in an article. -- Ssilvers 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

MP3 files, etc.

Whoever's removing the link to the MUGSS mp3 database really should reconsider. The worst thing frankly about this article is the links section, as it lacks even a single link to a high quality collection of G&S music. (No, MIDI files and a list of tracks you can't even listen to aren't high quality.) The MUGSS page linked to can by contrast access mp3 files for every song from their plays performed by MUGSS, including some "lost" songs like Pirates' "To Queen Victoria's Name We Bow." IMO a database of G&S music actually being performed contributes a *lot* more to the article than linking to MIDIs, G&S parodies and a New York society page without one recording. 68.195.209.53 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) AJP 13:57 EST, 4 Dec. 2006

I'm inclined to agree here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam, did you click on this link? This is a link to the MUGSS Pirates website and contains, among other things, like MUGSS' cast list, only MP3 files of an amateur production of Pirates, and not of any other shows. At best it should go in the Pirates article.

I have no problem with adding links to MP3 files here, but they should be of selections from several G&S shows. What we have agreed NOT to add, is links to particular amateur performing groups' websites, because it is not fair to list one or a few of these, without listing the hundreds of other ones, and we already have a link to amateur performing societies. Adam, can we please have a consistent policy? Why are these amateur "Pirates" files (toghther with the MUGSS peformance info) to be kept here and not all other amateur groups/shows?

Also, are there no high quality public domain G&S music excerpts that may be posted, without pulling along with them particular amateur groups websites? -- Ssilvers 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't poke around: My computer is a bit slow with mp3s, so... But I rather suspect there won't be any non-amateur public domain stuff of any use - it'd have to be pre-1927, and, frankly, given recording technology at that time you'd only get good singing - the orchestra would almost certainly be blurred. (it involved a cone that the singers clustered near, the orchestra a ways behind 'em. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to try clicking "previous show/next show" at the top? And putting one or two files to listen to on this page is frankly not the same as putting a link to an entire database. Frankly this page is probably the only one with mp3 files of entire plays and if a page of MIDI files is worth including, this certainly is. As for amateur, well, that's your opinion, and frankly I'd say your opinion isn't enough to claim a page of mp3 files isn't worth including while a New York society page that contributes nothing to the article is. 68.195.209.53 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll enter the fray here, as MUGSS' music is actually something I've been familiar with for 3 years now, as I listened to it before I bought any actual CDs. Perhaps the link should be included but changed to [1] rather than a particular Pirates production? While it is an amateur university G&S company, it /is/ the most thorough free collection of actual recordings, some of which are excellent. By the way, they frequently have cut songs such as the aforementioned "To Queen Victoria's Name" and "A Laughing Boy." A few of their recordings have full dialogue. --Anivron 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Only the MUGSS shows from 1998 to 2002 have MP3s, so I suggest that, instead, we move this Pirates link to the Pirates article and add links to the pages with MP3s of the other four shows to the relevant pages. If you agree, feel free to go ahead and do it. -- Ssilvers 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what happens to this article? It remains without decent audio samples? As for the above link, it's only a list of the plays they've done and unfortunately doesn't have any clickable links to the specific shows. Otherwise, I would have used it instead. Anyway, consider the plays between 1998 and 2002: their four most recognizable plays (Pinafore, Pirates, Sorcerer and Mikado), by a significant margin, are among those recorded.

As an aside, I for one wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a G&S in popular culture section under influence. For starters I happen to know that Seth McFarlane, creator of Family Guy, is quite a fan, as he's included songs from Pirates, Pinafore, and the Sorcerer (by my last count) in episodes. Just a suggestion.68.195.209.53 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Political references

Are these political references really notable? Lots of people quote G&S. Why is it a big deal that a politician quoted it occasionally? -- Ssilvers 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what irt says again,. Sam. They didn't quote it, they rewrote it and sang it. Mindm the reference lacks historicality: It's been used in Briytish politicks for years, e.g. The Ratepayers' Iolanthe. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but why stick random, disorganized references into the article? Why not say something like, "G&S has been parodied and quoted in politics for over a century, for example in The Ratepayers' Iolanthe"? -- Ssilvers 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That works, though, frankly, it's a lot more relevant than some of the cultural references, isn't it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that only the most important references should eventually be in the article. Some of them could be moved to the articles on the particular operas that they reference. Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to work out a short paragraph on the most notable political references, which should be fairly relevant. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To be worked on

Their songs were also briefly popular at annual Conservative Party conferences. Secretary of State for National Heritage Virginia Bottomley reworked "...now I Am The Ruler Of The Queen's Navy" as "Now I Am The Leader of the Labour Party" in 1996, mocking Tony Blair.[2] Secretary of State for Social Security Peter Lilley sang a version "As Someday it may Happen", condemming those who claimed benefits, in 1992.

Also, adding Sam Hartley as a lyricist influenced by Gilbert and Sullivan (it was attempted to be added, but the addition broke the article, and wasn't referenced properly) Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every lyricist of the early 20th Century was strongly influenced by Gilbert. I ran a Google search and don't see anything linking Gilbert and Hartley. On the other hand, Oscar Hammerstein II, Gershwin, Wodehouse and many others cited Gilbert. -- Ssilvers 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Skip it then. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations

I replaced all the instances of "G&S" in the article with "Gilbert and Sullivan", and it was reverted. I don't want to get in an edit war over it, but I think we really shouldn't have this abbreviation in the article. It's lazy netspeak and has no place in an encyclopedia. -Branddobbe 10:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Peter Zavon is correct. It's not netspeak but in fact has been around longer than any living person remembers. The abbreviation is absolutely clear from the context, where the full name is mentioned several times, and the abbreviation is appropriate here. Moreover, every Gilbert and Sullivan fan on Earth calls it G&S. It is not only convenient to use the abbreviation, but we may as well acquaint encyclopedia readers with the common form that is used to refer to the works. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach

Unfortunately, most of Offenbach's operettas have no article in English Wikipedia, and most of those that do have articles only have a stub or a very short article. If you have information about Offenbach or his operettas, please check out the Offenbach article and add some content to the articles on his operettas or write some more articles about his operettas. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But stubs are not the problem; misleading stubs are. Will go to work on that. MOI JE CROIS 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

See the section in the article Headed "The Triumvirate...." That explains, to some extent, why G&S and Carte preferred the term Comic Opera. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add the page number cites for each of the music encyclopedias that say that G&S is "operetta". Thinking about it, I can't see how the non-English one is relevant. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-English references would confirm the Penguin's assertion that educated people are nowhere willing to accept the dictate of specialized scholars in matters of usage (Operetta is the internationally recognized term...). But you are right, they are not needed. No reasonable person will doubt the Penguin's words anyway. MOI JE CROIS 08:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As to your p.???: I have taken the liberty of removing it. People who who can't find "Sullivan" in one of these reference works will not find the entry with the help of page numbers either. MOI JE CROIS 08:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. -- Ssilvers 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article on-hold

Hi, I've gone over this article quickly, and the thing that stood out was the 'Cultural influence' section. Frankly, it's a mess. The section is made up of lots of fragmented information instead of explanation. There's no apparent concept of the most important of influences demonstrated in the text. G&S's influence on modern language is reduced to a single sentence, while references from TV shows gets a whole paragraph.

A 'Cultural influence' section shouldn't go about listing films and TV shows where a character hummed a tune or sang a fragment of a G&S song. Especially in a more generalised article such as this which covers all the G&S works. This section should be re-written as less 'factual trivia' and more 'lasting impact of G&S'. --Barberio 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the criticism (and have not reviewed this article due to a relative lack of experience in these things - so, am interested in the comments), is that not an issue for improving the article to FA status, rather than holding it back from GA? Thanks. Kbthompson 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've cut ti down to a few particularly major references in film and television, while expanding the section on influence in politics and literature. How's that look?

Probably a little under-referenced, but we'll sort that as we move to FA. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Still reads as a listing of randomly selected trivia than a discussion of G&S's cultural impact. The section on literature is a listing of Issac Asimov short stories, followed by a single mention of P. G. Wodehouse. I'd advise you just to cull the entire section and rewrite it from scratch. Discuss the "tradition of pastiche" towards G&S works, rather than identifying a lot of individual pastiches. You should also note the difference between parody and pastiche, in that modern versions of G&S works with altered lyrics are pastiche not parody.

I'd also advise you to avoid using dense run-on sentences, such as

"British politicians, beyond quoting some of the more famous lines, have also delivered speeches in the form of Gilbert and Sullivan parodies, such as Conservative Peter Lilley's use of 'I've got a little list' from The Mikado, to list those he was against, including "sponging socialists" and "young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing queue."

as these significantly reduce readability.

It is also innapropriate to embeded sentences or sentence fragments in parenthesis, such as

"Another, called 'The Year of the Action,' concerns whether the action of Pirates took place on March 1, 1873, or March 1, 1877. (That is, did Gilbert forget, or not know, that 1900 was not a leap year?)

--Barberio 17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be very hard to reference a discussion of the tradition of pastiche in film and television; I'm not aware of any scholarly references. Also, there's a good reason to deal so heavily with Asimov: He's one of the most important authors that heavily reference G&S, probably more so than Wodehouse, who has a broader base of knowledge to draw on (he references some very obscure Gilbert), but does so in passing, not as a major part of any one work, as far as I'm aware. Hence, Asimov uses Gilbert and Sullivan deeply, whereas Wodehouse merely references him shallowly, but very frequently. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't cite something to support discussion of G&S's cultural impact, then merely listing pastiches or references to G&S is Original Research. Go find something to reference on G&S's cultural impact. --Barberio 17:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly cite things saying "It's been referenced a lot". But, while we have scholarly citeds for the influence on language, politics, and literature, I don't think there's much talking about its use as parody in an overview. Of course we can show that the Elements is probably the best known G&S filk. But you're asking for a scholarly article on G&S filks that may or may not exist. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are no cites to cover it, then you should leave it out. --Barberio 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between there being no cites of the specific nature you want and there being no cites at all. We can't make the integrated analysis you desire, but we can make a looser one. We can talk about how it happens frequently, with examples of types of references. We can't, however, do scholarly waffle about how the exegesis of the text into the celluloid media demonstrates its deep and recurring memetic power Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian Bradley wrote Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! The Enduring Phenomenon of Gilbert and Sullivan, which may contain useful info and something to cite. I do not have a copy, but can check one out of the local library on Tuesday. Would this be of help? Loggie 19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard of that, it's mainly about G&S in performance; I suppose it might have something about parodies, pastiche, and referencing, but I haven't heard that it does. Can't hurt to try, though, worst that'll happen is that it'll turn out to only be useful for other parts of the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do that then, and if I manage to find anything useful I shall report back. Loggie 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, actually, the most obvious influence is on the musical. So I added a discussion, which is actually well supported by Bradley's book (relevant pages of which were forunately available on line. I've also made some copy edits to shorten long sentences and to improve the flow. -- Ssilvers 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading/skimming much of Bradley's book, and a few others, the only interesting facts that I think might still be mentioned is that G&S seems have more influence on the librettists, rather than the composers of current musicals, and that they are more widely appreciated in America and other English speaking countries, rather than in England. Apparently they are seen as more middle class, and not favored by the critics at home. Just two points I saw as interesting that weren't included. Otherwise I think it looks good. Loggie 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Barberio, the Cultural Infuence spinoff article is just a starter, so it is not fair to say that the length of that article is relevant to what should be here. I think the idea of cutting this down to size is good, but I think we need to add back a few examples of pastiche, literature, film and TV. I don't think we can omit all reference to Allan Sherman, although you may not be familiar with him. And the Anna Russell parody was very famous for decades. Also, everyone, should adaptations section be above or below the cultural influence? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A general rule to work by, in my opinion, is that lists, however necessary, go at the end of the article. However, your new Cltural Influence section looks extremely good! Nice work! Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom

Could anyone who is interested in helping sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom#Participants. Thanks! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

The new cultural influence section seems stable now, so now it can have a review.

My initial major concern was the Cultural influences section naturally. Many many pages on wikipedia tend to have these, and they turn into little more than listing of trivia. The clean up on this section seems to have settled and become accepted, so that's a good mark. Since I helped with that, I'm now excluded from giving a review, but I think it should pass. The next reviewer may find some other problems I missed tho. --Barberio 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this should pass. The prose is good but I found the frequent use of "also" and "in addition" distracting. These are possibly a symptom of wikiwriting in small segments. I like how the works are briefly described. The "note on terminology" is self-referential. The self-reference should be removed and this section rephrased to avoid "This is because..." It seems straightforward to say "X, Y and Z called these works comic opera. A and B refer to these works as operetta." Gimmetrow 16:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Promoted to Good Article

I'm a little confused. The template at the top of this page says that this is a Good Article already. I'm I mis-reading it? Marc Shepherd 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Barberio promoted it, based on Gimmetrow's concurrence above. -- Ssilvers 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the issues I mentioned, the prose is more a FAC concern, and the self-reference is probably handled by now. Doesn't seem worth doing a "GA hold" for that. Gimmetrow 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comic Opera - Note on Terminology

Everyone: Would it be OK to take the note on Terminology and just make it into a footnote at the first reference to "comic opera"? -- Ssilvers 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked it - I think it should be a section. I've left in a minimal self-reference, because Wikipedia:Avoid self-references specifically allows the use of "This article": It only forbids "This website" and "This Wikipedia article", for reasons given on that page. So we're fine there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Note on terminology" section is jarring, and doesn't really "fit" with the rest of the article. Taking Sam's idea a bit farther, perhaps this whole paragraph could be moved to the Savoy opera article, and then a brief footnote in this article would suffice. Bear in mind that it's not merely this article that refers to the G&S pieces as "comic operas," but every article in the entire G&S project. The terminology discussion would be more at home in Savoy opera, since that whole article is about defining the genre. Marc Shepherd 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's useful to explain terms, and wonder if perhaps this note should be spread more widely. That said, I wouldn't really object to changing it to a slap-on template for talk pages. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument that it's useful to define terms. But given that there are dozens of articles that use "comic opera," in this sense, it's a matter of finding the one place where the explanation best fits. Other articles can then refer to that explanation. There seem to be just a few articles where this question regularly comes up, so a broadly-applied "slap-on template" doesn't appear to be called for. Marc Shepherd 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Point. But I think it was added here because this page got a lot of rewriting. Ah, well. Grab it from the history and slap it over onto Savoy Opera! Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate templates. In any case, if the term is adequately defined in the "comic opera" article and the "Savoy Opera" article, then the bluelinks to those articles should suffice. I don't see why it's such a big deal anyhow (an editor insisted on inserting it about a month ago). What "brief footnote" would you suggest, Marc? -- Ssilvers 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have transferred the note on terminology to the main body of the Savoy opera article. Any other articles that seem to require it can refer to that article for the full discussion. Marc Shepherd 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

After some discussions at the FA review and upon the advice of User:SandyGeorgia and User:Tim riley, I have change the intro to begin "Gilbert and Sullivan refers to the partnership...." I think this is much better than "were" or "was". -- Ssilvers 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut text

"In these worlds fairies rub elbows with English lords, flirting is a capital offence, gondoliers ascend to the monarchy, and pirates turn out to be noblemen who have gone wrong."

This is a rather fine bit of description, and I'd like to use it somewhere - in W.S.Gilbert, perhaps? Still, everyone's complaining about the length of the lead, and the paragraph works without it, so, I've cut it. Please find a home for it in one of the articles?

I've also cut two other things - the reference to them also being called the Savoy Operas, which always seemed a little out of place anyway - and we cover it later - and the entire fourth paragraph, which seemed a bit tacked on, and is pretty well-covered later. I think the first three will suffice to introduce it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it: I managed to find enough else that could be cut that it doesn't matter. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need to improve references to lead-in

For a purported featured article, the lead-in has too many poorly referenced statements.

• "Gilbert, who wrote the words, created fanciful topsy-turvy worlds for these operas, where each absurdity is taken to its logical conclusion." (In addition to the lack of a source, I think this statement is liable to confuse the general reader.)

• "Sullivan, the composer, contributed tuneful and memorable melodies that could convey both humour and pathos...."

• "...his musical ingenuity and craft equalled or surpassed that of many important classical composers." (There is a footnote, but if you look at the source, it does not really support the text. Also, the source is an obituary—hardly the place to find a balanced assessment. The statement putting Sullivan in the same league of "many important classical composers" is so vague as to be nearly useless.)

• "The Gilbert and Sullivan operas have enjoyed broad and enduring international success."

• "Their collaboration introduced innovations in content and form that directly influenced the development of musical theatre through the 20th century." (A source is given, but it's behind a paid firewall.)

This version actually did have some sources supporting the influence, but the information was lost in a re-edit.

By the way, I am not disputing that most of these statements are true. (Well, I would dispute the middle one, but I'm okay with the others.) However, they are far too loosely sourced for a featured article. Marc Shepherd 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now, I think. Note that WP:LEAD indicates that the intro should not be too heavily referenced, since it is supposed to be giving an overview of information that is contained and fully referenced later in the article. So, the question should really be, are all the key assertions correctly referenced later in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the footnotes from the lead, if we're reasonably confident that every statement is referenced later on. That clearly wasn't the case in the earlier version, but it may well be fixed now. Marc Shepherd 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should double check, but at least now we KNOW what the refs are, and we just need to make sure that the info and refs are in an appropriate place in the article. Can you look for that please, while I work on the expansion? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead seems a bit short now... Perhaps we should expand it out a bit while we do so? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look too short to me. What do you think is missing? -- Ssilvers 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really summarise the breadth of the article, does it? We need something that sets out why Gilbert and Sullivan are important, and gives a good flavour of what's to come, and I'm not sure this rather dry lead does this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bit more general talk about the operas, about the carpet quarrel, about the end of the partnership, and their legacy? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Article balance

I put an {{Expand-section}} tag in the Savoy Theatre: Patience to Gondoliers section. The issue is really one of balance. The preceding section (Sorcerer to Pirates) has five paragraphs on just three operas, while this section has three paragraphs on seven operas.

Part of the problem is that the "Sorcerer to Pirates" section uses up far too much space on a relatively unimportant work, The Sorcerer.

To be fair, it's not so much on The Sorcerer as it is on the creation of the D'Oyly Carte. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry, once I finish doing the expansion that I am currently working on, I think the balance will be OK. Meanwhile, Adam, please look for places where an unreferenced assertion is made and try to reference it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 05:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how much I'll be able to do in the... two hours before father's here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished expanding the section. I plan to add a little more on Pinafore and Pirates (not too much, though) another day soon. -- Ssilvers 06:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions ((Thespis, Trial by Jury, etc)

I don't like 'em. There's just too many, breaking up an otherwise coherent narrative. I'm not going to revert, but I'll ask you to reconsider Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of expanding and re-organizing some stuff. If, in the end, we think it didn't work, they can come out. I found the pre-headings version too textually dense. Marc Shepherd 00:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A compromise: I left in the headings with bolding, but not a TOC-cluttering subhead. However, subject to Marc's further advice, I am skeptical of them. They make it harder to place the images attractively, for one thing. What say you all? -- Ssilvers 03:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Article balance: Pinafore and Sorcerer

I re-organized the Sorcerer and Pinafore sections, moving quite a bit of the general comments (about the repertory system and stock characters) from the former to the latter. It was really Pinafore, not Sorcerer that cemented the template for the future G&S collaborations. Sorcerer was not really that successful. It opened in November 1877. By February, Carte was already asking for a replacement.

As previously structured, the article said more about the lesser work (Sorcerer) than about the smash hit that really launched them to international success. It seems odd to speak of Sorcerer establishing any kind of "repertory" system. At the time it was written, it was a repertory of one, with no plans for any others.

The article still has a balance problem in a number of other places. The section on Thespis is longer than the section about The Mikado.

By the way, I am focusing on getting the article to say the right things, with the right emphasis, and not on improving references. I can very easily source anything, but it's very tedious to move things around when there are bulky "ref" tags in the way. It is easier to add them after the flow and balance of the prose are correct. Marc Shepherd 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ongoing excellent work! I agree that the balance of these early sections is much improved. I don't think that Thespis is too long any longer, since it is only two paragraphs (the third paragraph is not about Thespis) and contains some information necessary to set up the later narrative. I have made some minor edits that I hope improve clarity. -- Ssilvers 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that the Thespis article is too long per se, but that it is out of balance in relation to The Mikado (which is only one paragraph). I'm not proposing to remove anything from the Thespis section, only suggesting where some of the others still need beefing up. Marc Shepherd 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

O'/and distinction

It's always better to discuss things rather than edit war. Gilbert O'Sullivan has a {{distinguish}} link on it and has done so since 13 October 2007 when it was added by Neelix (talk · contribs). People editing here will clearly be those that know about Gilbert and Sullivan, but for those that don't know much it can cause a little bit of confusion. I don't see how it harms the article to include the link and would think it better to have it atop the page. violet/riga (t) 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that anyone looking for Gilbert O'Sullivan will come here. No distinguish tag is necessary. -- Ssilvers 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you haven't really responded to my points here. violet/riga (t) 18:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They're not likely to be confused. What more can one say? Marc Shepherd 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The fact that Violetriga, Neelix, and I find them easily confusable just goes to show that they are confusable. Reginmund 04:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't said "how it harms the article to include the link". The argument for not including the link is that the topics are not confusable, but the argument to include it is that they are confusable, that Gilbert O'Sullivan has the link, and that it doesn't cause any harm to include it. The only possible compromise situation is to have the link included in the lead text, so why don't we think about doing that? Please stop the edit warring - it will not progress the discussion. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried this out. It doesn't stand out too much so doesn't perform the function of a "distinguish" link especially well, but at least it is covered near the top of the article. If this proves acceptable the same should be attempted at the O' article. violet/riga (t) 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that edit. Marc Shepherd 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong objection to it. Adam Cuerden is right: While G&S were important enough to O'Sullivan to make him change his name, O'Sullivan is of very little importance to the world of G&S. In the main G&S Cultural Influences article, O'Sullivan is mentioned. That is more than enough of a mention with respect to the G&S article. -- Ssilvers 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who came first, they are easily confused and should be distinguished somehow on the page. Reginmund 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ssilvers makes a compelling point. The connection is extremely important to Gilbert O'Sullivan, since it's the source of his stage name. But the connection is extremely trivial, as far as Gilbert & Sullivan are concerned. It's just one of many scores of cultural references. As now written, it does make the lead extremely unbalanced. It just looks as if someone has a Gilbert O'Sullivan fetish. I'm reverting for that reason. Marc Shepherd 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[Conflict]If it were another duo, I think you might have a case. However, O and and really are not easily confused. It's just silly and a severe underestimation of the intelligence of someone searching for either entry. Kbthompson 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We're here to make browsing an encyclopedia easier for everyone, and some people would benefit from the link. To whom will the link be problematic? violet/riga (t) 18:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, so you ignore the compromise too. Sorry but I saw that as a fair attempt at finding a middle ground and it isn't very good that you still haven't replied to me about how it damages the article to have a notice at the top. I feel an RfC coming on, and it's stupid that it has to get to that stage. violet/riga (t) 18:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We certainly did not ignore it. We considered it and disagreed with it. See above. -- Ssilvers 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see above, but I don't really see much of a discussion. There is no rush to remove such good faith attempts at a compromise and this is coming across as WP:OWN. Those people here arguing against the link (or, rather, just stating their opinion to not have it) are the same people that know about the operatic duo and don't seem to understand that there are some people that don't know quite so much about this and would benefit from such a link. I am still yet to see an argument against including the link other than "I don't think there's any confusion". violet/riga (t) 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure how you believe this "discussion" is supposed to proceed. There is a binary decision to be made — to {{distinguish}} or not to {{distinguish}}. The decision whether to do so requires judgment. I don't think there's a provable right answer, nor is there a half-way point. The {{distinguish}} tag will be there, or it won't be. Either way, some quantity of people will believe we arrived at the wrong answer. Such is life on Wikipedia (and elsewhere).

I think you misjudge your audience, when you say that some editors are aware of the operatic duo, but not the Irish singer. I believe I knew the song "Alone again (naturally)" before I knew anything about Gilbert & Sullivan. I simply do not think there is much opportunity for confusion, given that these articles have been here for years, and the issue never came up until three weeks ago.

I also don't see the point of all this Wikilawyering (RfC, allegations of WP:OWN violations). All the time, decisions are reached that I disagree with. That's how the process works. I move on. Marc Shepherd 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have my point about the harm caused responded to. Oh, and you have a strange definition of Wikilawyering. violet/riga (t) 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Harm caused: It would be unnecessarily distracting to put a distinguish tag at the top of articles to distinguish other articles where there is no likelihood that searchers will have difficulty finding the correct article. The harm is that if we put tags at the top of every article to distinguish all the articles that could conceiveably confuse someone, then every article would start out with a cacophony of needless and distracting tags. -- Ssilvers 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is likelihood. We wouldn't add it for any other reason. Reginmund 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, what a horrendous discussion about a little thing. I have personally experienced people confusing "Gilbert and Sullivan" with "Gilbert O'Sullivan". It happens. Put in the distinguish tag, in smaller type(?), and move on. Pzavon 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war - what does it achieve? There is clearly no consensus for either side and there simply never will be. Please discuss the way forward. violet/riga (t) 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That is very cynical of you, especially because you cannot provide a reason for removing the tag. There simply hasn't been any reason to remove it either. Reginmund 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was stating a matter of fact and not being cynical at all. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag is unnecessary, it serves only to distract the reader and tells you nothing about G&S. Please don't edit-war over this, just leave the G&S folks here to do their job. Good heavens they do it well...why the unwarranted interference? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The same could be argued about all dab links, and they are considered to be a navigational aid rather than part of the article itself. violet/riga (t) 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dab links serve an informational purpose. I strongly doubt this will help or inform anyone - all it will do is distract. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hence my attempt at a compromise, though that appears to have been largely ignored. violet/riga (t) 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Adam - the man can't be so important as to merit a place in the lede of a (mostly) irrelevant article! Middle ground does not equate to best practice. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It might make sense to mention the O'Sullivan connection somewhere in the article's body, but it might not be lede material. Marc Shepherd 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it was not ignored. It was considered carefully and edited by two different editors, and everyone agrees that O'Sullivan should not be mentioned in the LEAD to this article. He is mentioned in the main "cultural references" article about G&S, which is where I think he belongs. I say again: No one who is looking for Gilbert O'Sullivan will have any difficulty in finding him without a distinguish tag on this page. I'm sorry you disagree, but there is no consensus for adding such a tag. Moreover, mentioning O'Sullivan in the LEAD to this article is absolutely wrong. See WP:LEAD, which says to put only the most important information about Gilbert and Sullivan in the Gilbert and Sullivan lead. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You may think that, and it really would've been nice to discuss it in order to attempt to achieve a compromise. Clearly the intention was to highlight the important impact that G&S had and using O'S as an example allowed a neat little way for us to try and work to a solution. Sadly too many people here are coming across as "Our way, sod off" rather than openly and politely discussing it. violet/riga (t) 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't take it so personally. Sometimes you have an idea to improve an article, and you can't persuade enough people to make it stick. It's a regular occurrence around here. It has happened to me plenty of times. You just get over it, and move on. Marc Shepherd 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't take it personally, I just dislike edit wars without decent discussion. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Marc Shepherd please explain why the distinguish tag should be removed? Because, so far he hasn't and continues to remove it without reason. Reginmund 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of this discussion? Only a complete idiot would look for "Gilbert O'Sullivan" under "Gilbert and Sullivan". I think the "and" should be a strong enough hint that you aren't dealing with a single individual.--Folantin 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are making too harsh statements. I have made this mistake and few bright people I know have mistaken both of them because they sound so phoenetically similar and other people on this talk page can agree. This is what we have the distinguish tag for, to help these people who are tryng to find what they are looking for. Yet, the "and" still isn't strong enough. Reginmund 15:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, consensus hasn't been reached on this subject. I am requesting comment. The reason being that we have the distinguish tag on Wikipedia is to distinguish article names that may be confusing. I'm hearing some arguments that the article names aren't confusing. However, the fact that I and other editors have added it in and have personally been confused by them goes to show that they are. I have also heard that the connection is merely trivial. Yet, the tag is irrelevant to it being trivial. We don't put up distinguish tags because they trivially expose the similarities of two articles' names; we add the tags because the names may be confusing to other editors, which they have been proven to be confusing. Reginmund (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "and" makes it crystal clear that this article is about two people, whereas Gilbert O'Sullivan's article is about one person, so I don't believe that there is any serious possibility of confusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are easily distinguished textually but not necessarily phonetically. In the instance that someone hears "Gilbert and Sullivan" or "Gilbert O'Sullivan" without knowing anything about them, hence, whether or not it is singular or plural, they may be easily mistaken. Reginmund (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have known people who suffered this confusion in conversation and would have then had difficulty getting to the appropriate article in Wikipedia without some form of pointer like the distinguish tag. So, for me, the presence of a tag in both the "Gilbert and Sullivan" and the "Gilbert O'Sullivan" articles seemed a no-brainer. I really fail to see what is so offensive to Ssilvers and the others who want it removed from this article. Navigation aids like these would seem to be intended for people who are not topic experts, or are perhaps less sharp that some, and who might well miss a distinction such as "and" vs "O" between the two words. Pzavon (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an oral conversation, it is the written name of an encyclopedia article. Phonetics are irrelevant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Phonetics are quite relevant. We have to consider what people may be searching for based on whether or not they read it or hear it. Reginmund (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it's the pantomime season, but doesn't everyone feel that this is becoming a bit like Oh, no, it's not ... Oh, yes, it is. I don't think a lot of progress to a decision will be made in that way. I'll nail my colours to the mast and say I don't think such a tag is necessary. On the 'meaning' issue I would liken it to adding {{distinguish}} for Ball bearings to an article on the Rolling Stones. I went back to the disambiguation project pages, and noted there

Partial title matches
Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.

So, really it goes back to whether there is any significant risk of confusion between a well known and significant writing partnership with an individual who based his stage name on a pun based on their names. Which is essentially a trivial connection. There have been people saying that they are confused - but the requirement is that there be a significant risk - and I don't think the two articles meet that level of need for distinguish-ing. I think one of the difficulties that the G&S people have with the tag is that the artist has no notability in the world of classical operettas and so the tag is akin to cyber-squatting, or link-spam.

Now I've had my say, I'd like to propose that people give the issue a break until the New Year. The argument so far has been very circular, and I'm beginning to feel dizzy. I don't want to stifle discussion but most people are beginning to take up entrenched positions and repeat exactly the same points. Much better to mull it over for a while, take a break and come back to it anew, seeing if there is any common ground between the two positions. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account whether or not there is a significant risk, should the testimonies of other users saying that they've been personally confused or have know people that have been personally confused be taken into account? Reginmund (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and I hope everyone had a good Xmas, Chanukkah, or mid-winter festival of choice - and a happy New Year. (In reply) I wouldn't discount anyone's personal experience. I'm observing that the need for a distinguish tag is for a significant risk of confusion, not that some people have felt confusion on the issue.

Do people still feel have the same strong feelings about the matter? With the passage of time is it possible to come to an agreement, or should we resubmit the RFC (it failed for formatting reasons)? I'd ask people to be generous, in the spirit of the season and not consider the matter one of winner takes all. Kbthompson (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that there have been no new comments for two weeks, it appears there aren't very many editors who think the problem is a very serious one. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, people have felt confusion over the issue as verified in the previous text. Given that there have been no new comments for two weeks, its appears that many editors can't think of a better reason to keep the tag off so they have digressed to shunning the discussion because they simply don't want a distinguish tag for personal reasons. Reginmund (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did ask people not to continue the circularity of the argument for a couple of weeks - and I thank people for respecting that. I would try to concentrate on resolving the substantive issue rather than ascribing motives to people. Maybe the RFC should be resubmitted, as no consensus appears likely. Kbthompson (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If the previous didn't work for technical reasons, I would suppose it should be tried again. Reginmund (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have resubmitted an RFC, if anyone spots an error with it, or disagrees with the summary of the case, please feel free to edit/modify it. I have asked that people read this discussion and comment if they can move the argument forward. I hope this moves the situation towards a resolution that is acceptable to everyone. Kbthompson (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who was Bunthorne?

I recently edited the info that Bunthorne in Patience was a satire of Algernon Charles Swinburne. It was reverted. My addition was partially inaccurate, to be sure, but not the deletion of Swinburne. Richard Ellmann's definitive biography, Oscar Wilde, (Knopf, 1984-1988; ISBN 0-394-55484-1) discusses the provenance of Bunthorne (and Grosvenor)on pp. 135-36 and Wilde's American tour organized by Richard D'Oyly Carte to coincide with Patience's New York run. (I was wrong in writing that the tour preceded the opening.) Ellmenn makes a special point of Grossmith's Whistler imitation, right down to the streak of white in his hair -- clearly visible in the adjacent picture.

Your recent edit is an excellent addition, thanks! Two suggestions: first, you need to put the bibliographical reference into the article (which I have done, based on the information you provided), and second, please note that we are using British spelling and style for the G&S articles (I'm an American, but I try to use British spelling in these articles, although I make mistakes). BTW, if you like G&S, please join WP:G&S. We're a very small project, so we sure could use new members. -- Ssilvers 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the how-to; I'm new to this. JS

No problem. You can sign your name to talk pages by adding four tildes after your message: ~ ~ ~ ~ like this, but with no spaces, and the wikisoftware will automatically turn it into a signature for you. Are you sure about John Ruskin? The article on the aesthetic movement says that he was not accepted by the aesthetic movement and was a utilitarian? -- Ssilvers 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you re Ruskin. Here, I'm just citing Ellmann. Tildes, eh? Lessee now...Jim Stinson 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Jacobs

There being hitherto one unpaged reference to A Jacobs's biography of Sullivan and an unattributed date (Ida - Carte's demand for a new work) which is to be found in Jacobs, I have added them. Unfortunately the only edition of Jacobs I possess is the paperback of the first edition. Two existing refs in the article to Jacobs cite the second, revised edition. For the sake of consistency I have altered the latter to the page numbers of the first edition. If anyone with access to the second edition cares to overwrite my amendments (and alter the bibliographic info at the end) it will be esteemed a favour. (As a signpost for anyone undertaking the task, the second edition page numbers were about four pages later than those of the first.)Tim Riley 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! At least the refs are all consistent now. -- Ssilvers 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jessie Bond

The article as written implies that Jessie Bond was one of those relatively unknown artists engaged for The Sorcerer as well as for Pinafore. Bailey, pp 155-6, has a charming extract from her memoirs telling how she was plucked from the provinces and concert & oratorio singing to join Carte's company for Pinafore. Tim Riley 09:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed well enough, now? -- Ssilvers 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

O'/and distinction

This discussion has now been moved to the Archive, as the RFC on this point has now had sufficient time to attract new input. The RFC (below) has been closed with no consensus.

I propose to leave the RFC box on this page for another 7 days, so interested parties are informed, and then archive with a note here pointing the prior discussion, this is to let the talk page get back to discussion of the article content. Kbthompson (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Should a distinguish TAG be used on the Gilbert and Sullivan article for Gilbert o'Sullivan?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Should a {{distinguish}} TAG be used on the Gilbert and Sullivan article for Gilbert o'Sullivan? A circular argument has developed on this talk page with regard to this question. Unfortunately, there appears to be no middle ground between the two groups. The first requesting the tag, as they believe people may be confused. The second group regarding the addition as akin to unrelated link spam. Please review the arguments (above) and comment if you have a new point of view that moves this issue forward. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The reason being that we have the distinguish tag on Wikipedia is to distinguish article names that may be confusing. I'm hearing some arguments that the article names aren't confusing. However, the fact that I and other editors have added it in and have personally been confused by them goes to show that they are. I have also heard that the connection is merely trivial. Yet, the tag is irrelevant to it being trivial. We don't put up distinguish tags because they trivially expose the similarities of two articles' names; we add the tags because the names may be confusing to other editors, which they have been proven to be confusing. Reginmund (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not search indices, and the same para says significant risk of confusion. There's no point in revisiting the same ground, let someone neutral take a dispassionate look at the issue. Kbthompson (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it a very bad idea to patronise our readers in this fashion. For the vast majority of people this tag would simply be an irrelevant and distracting nuisance. Moreoever, the actual editors of this article have made it quite clear they don't want this tag, and they are, well, the people who wrote the flaming thing. Their call. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a "significant risk of confusion". Nor are we trying to "patronise" our readers. Is this what all distinguish tags do? I would have to agree that all distinguish tags would be irrelevant to most readers, that shouldn't suggest that we cannot use them. I don't understand how it actually distracts the rest of the text. The donation box looks even more distracting, why don't we dump that too? In fact, why don't we just get rid of all disambiguation links since they are so distracting and patronising to every article? The actual editors of this article don't own this article so it is basically anyone's call. Let alone that just because they don't "like" the tag should not serve as a good enough reason to elicit it. We already avoid it in other discussions for the same reason. Reginmund (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Seven days

I think it's probably time to wrap up this discussion, the (valid) RFC's been open for a week now, and it's not moved the discussion forward. Doing a rough tally back through the comments, those for not adding the tag outnumber those for the tag by only a couple. I wouldn't say that represents any consensus, either way. The way that normally goes is for nothing to be changed. The next step is to remove the RFC tag, archive this rather large conversation and get back to doing some editing. Kbthompson (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and wrap it up. There's no consensus in favour of putting the tag on. --Folantin (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was suggested that there was a need for a {{distinguish}} tag on this article pointing to Gilbert O'Sullivan. There was no consensus for the tag to be added. This includes points made in the section headed O'/and distinction. Kbthompson (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Music files

The music file in the article for "Three Little Maids" sounds like guys singing falsetto. Does anyone have access to a public domain file that's better? Unfortunately, the MP3 files linked under External Links seem generally too fast, and they're from university productions.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over length of run

In the section on H.M.S. Pinafore is this sentence: H.M.S. Pinafore ran in London for 571 performances, the second longest run of any musical theatre piece in history up to that time (after the operetta Les cloches de Corneville). In the section on The Mikado is this sentence: The Mikado became the partnership's longest-running hit, enjoying 672 performances at the Savoy Theatre, which was the second longest run for any work of musical theatre and one of the longest runs of any theatre piece up to that time. These can't both be right. The second sentence has a footnote, which points to this reference: http://www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-frames.html, which states that Pinafore ran for 700 performances, not 571. I could make a correction based on that reference, but I'm a little leery of doing so without a little more research and perhaps checking other references. I encourage someone else to sort this out and fix the article. Omc (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking the performance history at H. M. S. Pinafore shows that the official performance ran for 571 (from 1878), then transferring to NY - with an unofficial run of 91 in London concurrently and then subsequent official productions - probably giving the 700. That might explain the discrepancy, but strictly (I think) it amounts to a run of 571. The Mikado ran from 1885 - essentially breaking their own previous record second place position.

So, all of these can be reconciled - but perhaps lacking clarity. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a brief clarification in the Mikado section. Here's the full history lesson: Les cloches de Corneville ran for 705 performances in London beginning in 1878, enjoying the longest run of any production in musical theatre history. Pinafore opened later in 1878 and eventually became the second longest-running piece of musical theatre with 571 performances (the figure of 700 is the only error that I know of in that otherwise very useful list of long London and NY runs). Actually, Patience (opera) opening in 1881, first surpassed Pinafore's record, taking over second place with 576 performances. Then The Mikado took second place after opening in 1885 and running for 672 performances. The record of Les cloches de Corneville was finally broken by Dorothy (opera), which began its run in 1886. So, you were slightly misled by the unfortunate error in the reference, but I need the reference to show the length of the Les Cloches run. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

Please do not re-size the images without discussion on this talk page first. The image sizes should not be reduced. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the editors working on the article over the past two years or so have preferred these sizes. Why do you want to change them? The sizes you changed them to were too small and made it hard to see the details in the images, so that they were less effective in illustrating the accompanying text. Note that they are all public domain images. If you feel strongly about it, please give your reasons so that we all can discuss it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The shrunken images were not effective. Much better to revert to the previous sizes, arrived at after much trial and error. Tim riley (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. Ok then. The larger-sized images look poor on my setup, which can't be that uncommon among users; 1280x1024 on Firefox 3. The images take up most of the page. Thumbnail images are supposed to be just that, thumbnails, which a user can click on to see the details, should they wish. As an encyclopedia, we depend for our primary purpose on words, not images. The manual of style is pretty clear on the subject: "The current image markup for landscape-format and square images is: [[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]] and for portrait-format images: [[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Insert caption here]]" and

"Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary. The default size is 180px, although logged-in users can override this in their user preferences, up to a maximum of 300px. If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified."

My changes, being in line with MoS recommendations and also common sense, seemed pretty straightforward and uncontroversial, so I was surprised to see them reverted and then to get a warning on my talk page about it. Is this how you guys always treat people editing "your" articles? --John (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I generally do not involve myself with images, but for what it's worth, John's version looked better to me. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Riley, but in the interests of compromise, I reduced the two opening images, as John suggested, and I also reduced the poster showing the three shows, but not as much as John did. It was impossible to see anything in it at that size. By the way, John, I left a message on your talk page as a courtesy to you, not a "warning". It is polite to let someone know if you have reverted their edit. I think the images look better at the larger size. Where we have specified the size, it is because I (or someone else) didn't think that the image, to quote the MOS, "displays satisfactorily at the default size." -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks a lot better. It looked like a warning, containing as it did the text "Please do not reduce image sizes in the article, as several editors have previously reviewed the images in the article and are satisfied with the image sizes. Thanks!" It might have been better just to state your reason and take the discussion here, rather than framing it as a request not to do what I had done. No harm done anyway, and the article looks a lot better now, which was my intention all along. --John (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Current events

An editor continues to try to add this statement to the article: "Many of these performances typically incorporate local news or current events into the dialogue for added comedic effect." It cites two reviews of amateur productions as support. Setting aside the incomplete citations of sources (see WP:CITE), the fact that current events have been mentioned in two reviews is not a notable fact for this article. They don't establish that "many" productions do it, and the conclusion that it is "for added comedic effect" is WP:POV. Also, modifications are made as often in lyrics as in dialogue. Plus "many" and "typically" are redundant. But most importantly, the fact that public domain works sometimes receive minor updatings or modifications is a fact that does not need to be stated. The Shakespeare article does not say that "Many Shakespeare performances typically incorporate local news or current events", which they of course do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it is necessary to put such information into this article. Were we to do so, though, we would certainly want a much better source. In the G&S articles, we generally have very high quality sources, books by musical experts, newspapers of large circulation, etc. I see no reason to insert such a statement based on a local newspaper. I would suggest that the editor in question engage here and seek consensus for his views. That is how we do it on WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers here. I think the fact that some companies incorporate local matters into G&S productions for comic effect is irrelevant to the article as being unencyclopaedic and also poorly referenced. In addition, the claim that 'many' companies do so has not been adequately substantiated with the two references cited. Jack1956 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not such a comment is appropriate in the present context, I concur that the citations offered cannot conscientiously be said to substantiate the assertion that "many" companies tamper with the text. Tim riley (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good topic

I haven't had a hand in writing this article, nor have I participated in writing articles related to it. For this reason, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to make a formal recommendation about recognizing it as a good topic along with W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, however I would be interested to know why this hasn't happened. As far as I can tell, the three articles together fit the good topic criteria. Is there something I'm missing? Neelix (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Those three articles have been nominated twice and rejected twice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to place a template at the top of this talk page to demonstrate that this nomination has already been made and to link to the previous discussions? This is what is done in the case of former good article nominees; it would be helpful to have an analogous template for former good topic nominees. I'm having difficulty even finding the previous good topic nomination discussions for the Gilbert and Sullivan articles. Neelix (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

|upright is not a default.

"Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size says upright can be used to scale an image "Only where a smaller or larger image is appropriate". It's not appropriate to change the user's stated preference for every image in the article. The default width, as stated in the user's preferences, is a default width, and the mobile site is there fr those with tiny screens to get around any other issues. If the screen is so small that 220px is a problem then the mobile site should be being used. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Adam. The images under discussion are, IMO, too big and crowd one upon another for readers using wide-screen monitors and default settings. Therefore, for these images, "a smaller image is appropriate", and the "upright" code makes them fit nicely. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers use default settings, so I think your argument above does not hold water, as Sir Roderic would say. Also, it is disingenuous for you to exaggerate by saying "every image", when you know very well that the images under discussion are not "every image", but rather selected ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, every vertically-aligned one. But it's still rather a big drop in sie, to the point of making many of the images too small to make out the significant features; Patience, for instance, makes the actual people unviewable. I'd rather cut one - Gondoliers seems a good choice, as it only really gives insight to the opera if you already know it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the Patience image looks fine at this size. If a reader wants to see more detail, he/she can click on it. The Gondoliers image, does not impinge on any around it, so I don't see how cutting it would help the layout at all. The Utopia image, and the two images around it are all very close together and are squeezing the text, so if you want to delete an image, it would be the Utopia ballroom image; this is because Utopia is one of G&S's least important works, and the image merely illustrates the opera, whereas the two images around it both explain to the reader something important about the partnership. Still, I don't think it's necessary to cut it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:1881_Savoy_Theatre.jpg and File:D'oyly-carte-the-joy-of-three-generations-1921.jpg or the left-aligned ones around Utopia? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The left-aligned ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[left]If we're going to drop one, I'd say the Entr'acte. Too many black-and-white sketches in a row if we lose Utopia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The Entr'acte one illustrates the press interest in the important, long-awaited reunion of G&S. If the Utopia ballroom one were removed, I would increased the size of the Entr'acte image and move it to the right side. But, again, I am not requesting the removal of any images; only pointing out my opinion that the Utopia ballroom one is the least necessary in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

On which subject, what do you think of replacing the Crystal Palace image with http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/99471608/ ? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care. The old one ain't broke. If you are certain that it is a far superior image that would look better in the same place in the article, feel free to upload it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Humorist

Before anyone else gets into a tizzy about this spelling, let me quote from the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (as given in my edit summary):
humorist, humorous (not humour-)
humour (US humor)
--2005 edn, page 177
I grant it is understandable that such an apparent anomaly would confuse some people. Bjenks (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)