Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Opera articles

Discussion

Although I incorporated "Critical reception," "Music," "Dramatic elements" and "Trivia" from the musical theatre proposal, we don't currently have these sections for any G&S article.

"Editions" was my idea. I think the articles ought to provide an overview of available editions. "Recordings" is now present only in the Cox and Box article, but I think all should eventually have it.

I am not wedded to any particular order of the sections, and indeed have vacillated several times while drafting this section. The order of the last few (See also, References, Further reading, and External links) is a Wikipedia standard. There is also a fairly predominent de facto standard on the opera pages that "History" precedes the list of roles and the synopsis, though this isn't invariably the case, as the Porgy and Bess article illustrates.

Comments? Marc Shepherd 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, discussions of critical reception, music, dramatic elements and trivia would be good to include where there is verifiable info to discuss. You may want to add something to the Task List to encourage people to add this sort of info where appropriate.

Editions and recordings are your bailiwick (sp?). I think a list of notable recordings would be good, but perhaps it could be shorter than a complete list, and could say, "for other recordings, see [link to discography].

As I noted, I think the historical casting should be higher. I also added some section headings back to the "other operas and plays" group. If there is little to say in a section, though, it could be consolidated with the history section or another section. Ssilvers 05:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

In the latest version, I moved historical casting per Sam's suggestion. Marc Shepherd 19:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would move the "versions" down below the analysis of music and drama -- in other words, first discuss and analyze the most important aspects the work as we know it, including critical reception, which is a juicier subject for many, and then go into the variants, etc. By the way, what is the difference between the "variations" section and the "editions" section? Do we need both? Ssilvers 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Major revision

I put the proposal into a tabular form and added significant detail, also incorporating several of ssilvers' suggestions. Marc Shepherd 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job. I copy edited the chart to start each description with the imperative, e.g., "Use this section...." I made some other minor changes that should be reviewed. -- Ssilvers 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are great edits. Marc Shepherd 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Substantial work/Major work?

The latest edit introduced the term "substantial work." Although "major work" is defined, "substantial work" is not. This could confuse people. Marc Shepherd 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought just the opposite. "Major work" is defined as only the 11 operas plus C&B. The other term is used to mean ALL operas, plays and other substantial works (excluding, for instance, songs), that are to have the structure described here. We shouldn't use "major" to mean two different things. I just now tried to clarify more. Take another look: I think it works now, but if you prefer another solution, go ahead and apply it. -- Ssilvers 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that clarifies it. Marc Shepherd 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The trivia section seems to be implicitly deprecated in the guidelines. IMHO there are almost always interesting trivia surrounding the operas (as in Ian Bond's great The Gilbert and Sullivan Companion, amongst others).

Is this a genuine deprecation? Would anyone be offended if some interesting show trivia were added?--Jmptdc 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding a Trivia section to particular opera articles where there is something "notable" (See WP:IMP) verifiable and to say. However, our experience was that people were adding mostly NPOV and unreferenced, unverifiable stuff under this heading. So, in my opinion, feel free to do it where you can find something encyclopedic to add. Welcome to the Project. --Ssilvers 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove the "Trivia" heading. I think that everything worth saying can be incorporated into one of the other section headings. A "trivia" heading is, frankly, an invitation to insert random facts that are either irrelevant, unimportant, or not properly integrated into the article. As Jmptdc noted, one can always find "trivia," but is the article actually being improved by it? Marc Shepherd 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)