This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
A note on terminology Gilbert, Sullivan, Carte and other Victorian era British composers and librettists, as well as the contemporary British press and literature, called works of the sort that Gilbert and Sullivan produced "comic operas" to distinguish them from the continental European operettas that they wished to displace. Most of the specialist literature on Gilbert and Sullivan since that time has referred to these works as "operas" (e.g., Jacobs, Preface), though some later general books on music prefer "operetta". For a discussion of this, see Kuykendall, James Brooks. "Recitative in the Savoy Operas", The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 95, Issue 4, pp. 549–612. The Gilbert and Sullivan WikiProject has used the term "opera" consistently throughout the G&S-related articles within its scope.
Think you're right to keep from overstuffing the article. I'd say there's room to re-evaluate, but I'd start with the images I'd consider replacing, which are:
File:Sorc-Pin-Trial.jpg - A pretty bad reproduction, even at thumbnail. Think we mainly use this since it's both Sorcerer and Pinafore (we have a seperate Trial image.) I'd be inclined to go Pinafore over Sorcerer for a replacement: After all, one of the two is performed constantly, and it's not Sorcerer.
File:Denny and Bond.jpg Low-quality reproduction; I'll see if I can get a better copy. This one could maybe be replaced: On the one hand, it is iconic; on the other, they are the secondary characters, so maybe we should use a different Yeomen (or Ruddigore) image.
Maybes:
File:Marco and Giuseppe.jpg Little torn on this one. It's a classic photo, but it's not a great reproduction, and we maybe lean a little hard into staged photos for this article. Maybe if there's something obviously better, but inclined to leave it until then.
Thanks, User:Adam Cuerden! Some of the photos a new editor recommended are drawings of a scene, as in Pinafore and Pirates, which I agree is probably better than just a drawing of one character, like the Pirate King.
Would you please go ahead and delete the Sorc-Pin-Trial one, as well as the Pirate King one, and replace them with the colorful Pinafore one and the Pirates scene drawing (but try to keep the captions as concise and relevant to the G&S article as possible)?
As for Patience, they suggested the 1885 programme illustration instead of the Bunthorne. This also strikes me as good (unless you have an objection to it). I see you have already put your new Grossmith in the Grossmith and Patience articles.
Similarly, the Iolanthe one is OK instead of Barnett (if you agree), but the Princess Ida one should then go on the left, rather than the right side.
their Ruddigore suggestion is also OK, but I would move it left. Do you agree?
I like the current Denny/Bond photo. If you can get a better quality reproduction, even better (and it should also go in the Yeomen article. I would not use the NY one suggested by the new editor.
I am also torn on The Gondoliers, since the image we have is from the original production, while the one that the new editor suggested is from a touring production. Your choice.
I would NOT add the Grand Duke poster suggestion, as that part of the article is 'way too overcrowded already.
Please go ahead with those items that you agree with. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to number these for clarity:
Will do the left-right-left-right shortly
Sorc-Pin-Trial, Pinafore and Pirates: I think we can do better with Pinafore, but I'll put it in for now. We don't need a Sorcerer, right? Replaced. I think we c
I don't agree about the "Glad to see you together" drawing, as I think it expresses a key point about the public's perception of the evolution of the G&S partnership. Glad to hear others' opinions? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I generally like it more than the Grand Duke poster, but I was willing to compromise. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant. I see now that when you said "it", you meant the GD poster. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that we do not have enough vertical space there. A wide one is good, but it would be better to have one with larger figures that would show well at a smallish size. Of the Flint images, I think the one we are using is probably the best one here, as it can be used at the left. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
