Talk:Cryptoconchoidsyphonostomata

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notable as what?

Marc Shepherd has replaced the opera categories here, despite the fact it's designated in the article as an extravaganza (a form of burlesque according to Grove). I have an open mind on this, but is there any evidence for calling this a kind of opera, and if so, is it notable? --Klein zach 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved to the "G&S project" per discussion on the WikiProject Opera talk page.

The trouble here is that there is no "WikiProject Extravaganza", and there is not likely to be. The extravaganza form has basically died out. It may not be entirely accurate to call it an "opera," but it's certainly no more accurate to call it a "musical." Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. At least it's more notable to G&S than to Opera. ~~But can we remove the Opera cats/stub - otherwise it will automatically get rebannered as an Opera.~~ --Klein zach 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)P.S. Should be OK because bot automatically avoids G&S bannered articles. --Klein zach 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the contemporary reviews it is clear that this wasn't an opera, but a comic play with one song (with banjo accompaniment). I've replaced "opera" with "play" when expanding the article. Tim riley (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Title

Isn't anyone interested in the unusual title?

A quick Google search turns up nothing in the way of a definition. The Greek components transliterate to "hidden shell tubular pores", which doesn't suggest an obvious medical or biological meaning. Was the word invented, or does it have a meaning? David spector (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It stopped the online Oxford English Dictionary in its tracks. There is nothing even faintly similar in the OED, and I think it is safe to assume that Collette (brought up as a member of the Victorian Establishment, with, doubtless, a classical education) strung the word together himself. Tim riley (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can put the footnote in the middle of the bolded name of the play. I'd suggest moving it to the end of the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]