Talk:Marc Blitzstein

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Roscelese in topic Recent additions

Untitled edit

Should the Lina Abarbanell section be given its own page? It seems very out of place on the Marc Blitzstein page, as her connection to the man had no bearing on the work or careers of either person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshepinc (talkcontribs) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Categorizing Blitzstein's work on Wikipedia edit

It seems to me like there should be one category for Blitzstein's work for the stage. Currently Reuben, Reuben and Regina are in "Operas by Marc Blitzstein," a subcat of "Operas by composer," but Juno and The Cradle Will Rock aren't categorized as Blitzstein's work and are in musical-related categories. Their styles, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't appreciably different, but I can see how it might be a problem to group them all as operas or all as musicals. Do you think, then, that it might be a good idea to create "Stage works of Marc Blitzstein," put all the works in there, and make it a subcat of both the relevant opera and musical top-level cats? (There's also The Airborne Symphony if anyone feels like making "Stage works" a subcat of "Works by Blitzstein" - and somehow The Threepenny Opera should be in there, too, I think.) Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I asked this at the article's talkpage a week ago, but I haven't heard anything back and perhaps no one watches the page, so I thought I'd bring it to RfC. There's a more complete explanation there, but the issue is: Blitzstein's work straddling the line between opera and musical, how should we categorize it on Wikipedia? I'd love input. Roscelese (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why not leave the categories as they are, and create a navigation template entitled "Marc Blitzstein stage works" to be added to every appropriate article? Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

With whom he did not get on? edit

Does anyone have any idea what this is trying to say? Perhaps it could be worded better. 129.1.198.224 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is a Britishism: [1] & [2]. Hyacinth (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Britishism" or not, it's slang and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. TheScotch (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Recent additions edit

@Andressuarez1: Thanks for your recent additions. It's great that you have access to that source. Is there anything you could do to write the additions in more coherent English? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply