Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Collaborations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hey, I think I finally got it to say what I really meant.  OK, guys?  --  Ssilvers 06:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect of copyright expiration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Carte ''vs'' D'Oyly Carte 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential duplication 

message: 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)
replies: text: Five days later, nobody can come up with a source, so I'm dropping it. Marc Shepherd 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Beggar's Opera'' record 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Patter Song and the "Patter" Character 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Private Lives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The collaborators' names 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  See also cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The phrase "each of" is grammatically incorrect in this usage.  Pzavon 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Peter.  Please join the WP:G&S Project and contribute to the G&S articles.  -- Ssilvers 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have not got the available time, at present, to get that deepling involved.  Pzavon 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "each of" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  MP3 files, etc. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Political references 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right. Skip it then. Adam Cuerden talk 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be worked on 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Jacques Offenbach]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: 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)
replies: text: User:Barberio promoted it, based on Gimmetrow's concurrence above.  -- Ssilvers 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Promoted to Good Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comic Opera - Note on Terminology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cut text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need to improve references to lead-in 

message: I put an  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article balance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subdivisions ((Thespis, Trial by Jury, etc) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article balance: Pinafore and Sorcerer 

message: 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; ) 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who was Bunthorne? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks!  At least the refs are all consistent now.  -- Ssilvers 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Jacobs 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed well enough, now? -- Ssilvers 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jessie Bond 

message: :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)
thread_title:  O'/and distinction 

message: :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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.</div>
It was suggested that there was a need for a  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)
thread_title: Seven days

message: 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)
thread_title:  Music files 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current events 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those three articles have been nominated twice and rejected twice.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good topic 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  <code>|upright</code> is not a default. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Humorist