Talk:Rupert D'Oyly Carte

message: I've changed 'London' to 'West End' as the touring companies played lots of London suburban theatres in e.g. - at a random dip into Rollins & Witts - Camden, Fulham, Kennington, Notting Hill, Crystal Palace, Holloway, Hammersmith &c &c. (And, of course, Sadler's Wells, scene of so many wonderful D'Oyly Carte London seasons is miles away from the West End.)
Do we, incidentally, need any consideration of the various central London venues at which the D'Oyly Carte company regularly played? Willing to have a pop, sine die, if so. Tim riley 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's notable info, then add it.  I don't have enough info to have an opinion.  Best regards, and happy New Year!  -- Ssilvers 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’d like to know legal thoughts on using D’Oyly Carte Family and Savoy as subject for new musical theatre production and/or novel.  Where/how to get permission and possible support? RichardadicksonJaffa (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: London performances in the early C20

message: We have deleted this sentence: During World War II, Carte served as a King's Messenger, a person who carried important papers of state between heads of other governments and the UK government.(See Duffey, David. "The D'Oyly Carte Family", The Gilbert and Sullivan Archive, 20 September 2003, accessed 12 November 2009).  Are we certain that it is wrong?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are. Checking the G&S Archive article, I see that it refers to WWI not WWII as the war in which Carte served in that capacity. Corroborative detail: Leslie Baily, who interviewed Carte for his book in 1947, says: "During the 1914-18 war Mr D'Oyly Carte was on special duties in the Navy: he would be sent off on secret journeys to distant parts of the world, and he would mysteriously reappear in London for a few weeks, and when he did so he would put in a few touches to the preparatory work for the rebirth of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company." (Baily, p. 431). This sounds remarkably like the pattern of work of a King's Messenger. Given these two references, I think we can safely conclude that WWI is the war in question. Besides, quite apart from the absence of any reference to Carte's serving in this capacity in WWII, by 1939 he was in his sixties and past the age limit for government (or naval) service. - Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: King's messenger?

message: I can't find a suitable place to add this, but it is symptomatic of Carte's modern modus operandi that when a train strike in 1919 threatened to leave his company stranded in Bristol, unable to get to London for his much-publicised season at the Prince's, he hired aeroplanes to transport them, and had the scenery etc sent by road. See The Observer, "The strike and the theatres; 'Gondoliers' company to travel by aeroplane", 28 September 1919, p. 9. Can we make use of this somewhere without shoe-horning it in too gratuitously? - Tim riley (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Maybe a footnote to the 1919 season description?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly Carte 

message: At Ssilvers's request, I went through and made various copy-edits and corrections.  I have just two remaining suggestions that I am unable to act upon. I think the section on PSmith should be integrated properly into the discussion, rather than the current lay-out, which makes it look like an afterthought.  Also, there is a reference to Charles Rickets, RA. The initials RA should be linked to whatever it is the title stands for. I am not sure if it is Registered Architect, Royal Academician, or something else. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Royal Academician, but on further enquiry I find Ricketts wasn't elected a full member of the Royal Academy until 1928. He was elected an Associate Member in 1922, which entitled him to the post-nominal letters ARA until his full membership in 1928, after which RA applied. Perhaps we should just leave the letters out altogether? I don't think it would damage the present article. - Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: In its revised form, the J. M. Gordon reference seems to me less problematic than before.  There is one other point worth looking into. The article says that the 1947 U.S. tour was so successful that the company began to visit America with more frequency. But the American tours had already been fairly frequent in the years leading up to 1939. It seems to me that the company merely resumed the touring pattern that the war had forced it to interrupt. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I've rolled the Psmith para in with the personal details. - Tim riley (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edits 

message: The article previously stated that "Carte mounted tours of Canada (1927) and the United States (1934–35, 1936–37, 1939 and 1947–48)." It was missing the 1928–29 tour. Moreover, the 28–29 and 34–35 tours included Canadian cities as well. I added 28–29 and described all of them as simply North American tours. If anyone wishes to specify which tours included Canada, and which did not, feel free. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good solution, Marc, thanks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American touring dates 

message: The source cited is just plain wrong: many an opera had been "broadcast in its entirety" before 1932 – e.g. in early 1927 the BBC broadcast what it called a "Wireless Opera Season", with complete broadcasts of Rigoletto, The Bohemian Girl, Faust, The Barber of Seville,  Martha, Orpheus (Gluck), Fidelio, Romeo and Juliet, The Magic Flute, Philemon and Baucis, Geoffrey Toye's The Red Pen, and Les Cloches de Corneville. (The Observer, 19 May 1927, p. 12, and spot checked against contemporary radio listings, e.g. Fidelio from 20.00 to 22.15 on 22 March 1927). I wonder if the source meant to say the first complete broadcast of any G&S opera? As to the 1932 YoG's being the first full length relay of any stage work from a theatre, I don't know if that's true or not, but as the source is so horribly wrong on the first of the two statements I think it wise to err on the side of caution and remove that too, unless confirmation is forthcoming from a reliable source. – Tim riley (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should say that this was the first complete broadcast of a G&S opera.  I have revised this.  Thanks for the correction! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers say, the source is usually impeccable. But even Homer nods. I have had cause just this morning to point out a very similar (though not identical) error in no less an authority than Grove, here. Tim riley (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First complete opera broadcast 

message: In the summers of the 1930s the D'Oyly Carte family rented Soval Estate on the Isle of Lewis. This is a salmon fishing rather than a shooting estate. So Rupert was a keen fisherman, perhaps someone might like to add that to his interests. I still possess one of Rupert's ebony opera sticks which he gave to one of the gamekeepers. The family was fondly remembered by an older generation of Lewis folk right up till the late 1970s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.221.172 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Since we created this article, it has not had an infobox, consistent with the style guidelines of Wikiproject G&S. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely concur. Some articles benefit from i-boxes, and others don't. This is one of the latter - very clearly so, in my view. Tim riley talk 16:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox not needed

message: @Ssilvers removed the infobox Gaelicbow added, stating that there "is no consensus" to add one. But equally, apart from said user, there is (probably) no one else who would protest the addition of an infobox. I don't really mind, but think the issue should be discussed and editors can express their views whether they want / don't want an infobox. Thanks, Gaelicbow (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just discussed above.  Look at prev. section.  No one who did substantial work on this article has ever supported adding one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox