Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Gilbert and Sullivan has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks. |  |
|
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project. | ||
|
You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Gilbert and Sullivan as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia. |
 Archives |
|---|
| May 2006 – Present |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
