Talk:Cultural impact of Gilbert and Sullivan

message: This article is supposed to be about the cultural influence of G&S, but it's actually about pop-culture references to G&S, which is not quite the same thing. Consequently, it comes across as a (not-so) little list of the latter. It's disappointing, because the question of whether G&S have any significant cultural influence (other than Gilbert's elevation of lyric writing to a high art) isn't answered or even discussed.
I've added a reference to a "Tit-Willow" parody on Perry Como's TV show. I was going to say something about 1900 not being a leap year, but that's mentioned in the section on Isaac Asimov. It's my view that "Pirates" is roughly contemporary with the date of its production (ie, Frederick was born in 1856 and the story takes place in 1877), and that Gilbert either overlooked the fact that 1900 would not be a leap year, or deliberately ignored it, because "nineteen forty-four" is clumsy to set, even as recitative. Even if Gilbert was consciously aware that 1900 would not be a leap year, he might very well have decided that Frederick would be ignorant of it.  -- WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I know what the problem is... 

message: The July 26, 2009 episode of In Plain Sight (ep. 2.13 "Let's Get It Ahn") featured the Major-General song as part of the denouement of its plot. The song was the "on hold" telephone music for both Federal Marshals' (Mary and Marshall) simultaneous phone calls to a robbery victim and a police officer. This was recognized when Mary (who also then said she did musicals in high school) started humming the tune, and then Marshall realized he was hearing the exact same tune; whereupon they both put their phones on speakerphone and knew the fake "robbery victim" and the fake "police officer" were the same person. OK, I totally overexplained that .... just in case you wanted to boil it down to a one-sentence or one phrase mention. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not that anybody cares but ... 

message: This article exaggerates. "Short, sharp, shock" and the other phrases have no currency anywhere but in England. THe reference to the New York Times cites a 70 year old document, yet the article speaks of it in present tense. This is pure fanboy garbage and doesn't belong on Wiki. G&S have extremely small significance in today's world, and are practically irrelevant outside of Britain. 24.5.152.20 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  exaggeration 

message: I consider these societies  as impotrant cuntural influence. Some editor disagrees with this opinion, but instead of discussion he resolves to threats. Here is copy fvrom my talk page. Please join the discussion. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be such article. Redirects are valid. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There will be no such article, since there is no "Gilbert and Sullivan Society" as far as I am aware. There's W. S. Gilbert Society, there's Sir Arthur Sullivan Society and there are numerous performing groups called "X Gilbert and Sullivan Society" (X is mandatory here). The latter ones either have their own articles, or are non-notable. vvvt 16:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: If you search thru wikipedia article, you will find numerous refs to G&SS. I agree that only 3-4 or them are of reasonable notability. At the same time, the phenomenon of "Gilberd and Sullivan Societies" per se and en masse is suffifiently notable, since thy are noted in que a few sources "in plural". They are notable as part of Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, which I reflected by 
*(a) making an small (but expandable) addition to to the Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan,  
*(b) creating redirects to this particular section.
In other words, I did not introduce any confusion. On the contrary, I introduced a reasonable explanation of the term. Sorry to be blunt, but your opinion about what is helpful and what is not differs from mine. I made these edits precisely because I was not able to understand a particular phrase in Mark Zbikowski article. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but it is not a "phenomenon".  The fact that amateur groups perform G&S is not a cultural influence.  It is a *result* of the popularity of Gilbert and Sullivan.  Yes, what you are trying to do is extremely confusing because there is in fact an organization in London called the Gilbert and Sullivan Society, which is referred to in several articles, but it does not seem that you know anything about that organization or its various branches.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: *G&SS not only perform. In any case, performance is part of culture. Culture would be different with and without performances. Hence it is unfluence. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, I am a member of the Gilbert & Sullivan Society of London which is largely made up of non-performing fans of the works of G&S. If I had thought the Society in any way notable I would have written the article myself long ago. I agree with Ssilvers on this one, that the links should not be introduced into G&S related articles. Jack1956 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If these societies are nonnotable as a cultural phenomenon, I fail to see why they are mentioned in biographies of numerous people. In other words, you are missing my point: while G&SS may be nothing more than a fan club with no individual notability, the mere fact that there are hundreds of such clubs, and in many universities, is a cultural phenomenon worth knowing. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: P.S. I dont' introduce "links into G&S related articles". I introduce links into biographies of people where their membership in a G&SS is mentioned as part of their prominence. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry you are offended.  You are confusing at least two concepts.  First, there is a G&S Society (the main one in London) and various other appreciation groups.  Second, there are many performing groups that have the words Gilbert and Sullivan Society in their names.  In both cases, the popularity of Gilbert and Sullivan has led to these various organizations.   I don't think it is a cultural "influence" or "impact" of G&S that these groups exist - they don't affect culture.  Rather, it is merely the result of the popularity of the genre.  There is no article or section of an article called Shakespeare Societies or Rodgers and Hammerstein Societies or even Sherlock Holmes Societies, although such things exist.  But even if we did write an article about the Gilbert and Sullivan Society, it has no connection or relationship at all to, say, the Seattle Gilbert and Sullian Society or the Derby Gilbert and Sullivan Company.  It is nice that someone thinks that Zbikowski's college theatre experience was interesting to note in his bio.  No harm done, really, but it is trivia.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I never called your edits vandalism.  I said that if you do it again without discussion, I will consider it vandalism.  Please see WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not meant to contain all information, just well-organized, well-referenced notable information.  But there is room for flexibility.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi.  The Sherlock Homes groups are, not performing societies, but rather appreciation societies.  They get together and talk about Sherlock Holmes and have readings, lectures, etc.  There are thousands of amateur musical theatre groups in the world.  About 500 of these seem to be devoted to G&S or perform at least one G&S each year.  Similarly, there are some devoted to Rogers and Hammerstein, or "Light Opera" (Lehar, Friml, Romberg, Herbert, etc.)   In Britain, there is an organization called National Operatic and Dramatic Association (NODA},  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilbert and Sullivan Society 

message: From User talk:Lorem Ip I note that there has been  an edit war going on. I hope that my addition will be accepted as a reasonable compromise since whilst there may not be a Gilbert and Sullivan Society, there are many , lower case societies. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the problem.  There IS a Gilbert and Sullivan Society, and what is pointed to is not it.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but that relates to the redirects under discussion and that's a different issue from making the general point that many G&S groups are called societies which is all my addition does. Possibly, assuming the present redirects get deleted, a new redirect Gilbert and Sullivan society (note the lower case) could be a way to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "Gilbert and Sullivan society".  If anyone were looking for an article on the G&S Society in London, they would end up at this redlink.  Look, I don't want to discourage anyone from writing a great article, but I don't think there is an article to write on "Gilbert and Sullivan societies".  There are lots of amateur theatre groups in the world, and some of them perform G&S.  I don't think it's an encyclopedic topic, apart from the concept of Amateur theatre (and note what a terrible article that is!).  Just my opinion.   Note, BTW, that there is already an article on National Operatic and Dramatic Association (there is no US equivalent).  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The addition of 'and societies' is unnecessary in my opinion as the word 'groups' covers societies, players and anybody else performing the operas. Jack1956 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a helpful addition. Though hardly unique, nonetheless calling G&S amateur theatrical groups 'societies' is a significant part of G&S culture and worthwhile mentioning. The general reader might well be unaware of this. Perhaps you would explain why there is opposition to making this point? Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I have taken your point about the problem with 'Gilbert and Sullivan Society' hence my change of view at RFD. However, I think that you should now take mine on 'society'. Whilst you are correct in saying that there is no difference in the terms, and yes 'society' is used in other musical fields, it is an established G&S tradition to call groups societies. You have adduced no reason why we shouldn't make this point. The fact that another editor may have misused the term is no reason to excise it completely. My addition states this obliquely but we can be more specific if required. All modern bridge is Contract bridge. The distinction is between duplicate bridge, which I play, and rubber bridge, which I don't. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ssilvers argues an eloquent point. Where do you draw the line with listing all the different types of groups performing the operas - do we list all the different groups, societies, players, etc? I withdraw my support for the addition 'and societies' which should be removed from the article to avoid the possible confusion Ssilvers cites. Jack1956 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't need to list all the variations but this one is worthwhile mentioning because of its particular cultural usage. Far from causing confusing, it helps to explain what a G&S society is; why shouldn't we help the general reader who has heard about G&S societies? Many will not know that they are amateur dramatic groups. 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed; good solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'and societies' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628184625/http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=353263 to http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=353263
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907085148/http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/other_sullivan/lawrence/lawrence_3.html to http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/other_sullivan/lawrence/lawrence_3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910013241/http://new.stjohns.edu/download.axd/5665d1d62928417389ad9122506f43a1.pdf to http://new.stjohns.edu/download.axd/5665d1d62928417389ad9122506f43a1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012064103/http://www.cris.com/~oakapple/gasdisc/mdlehrer.htm to http://www.cris.com/~oakapple/gasdisc/mdlehrer.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025195749/http://www.cris.com/~oakapple/gasdisc/mdanna.htm to http://www.cris.com/~oakapple/gasdisc/mdanna.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified