Jump to content

Talk:Cultural impact of Gilbert and Sullivan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article candidate?

[edit]

Not even close, IMO. Its current B-class rating seems over-stated. Marc Shepherd 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on: Ssilvers has done an excellent job pulling together disparate information into a fair and reasonably balanced view of their significance in popular culture. For the type of article, its very good. I know that you have a certain streak of perfectionism, combined with a certain amount of excessive modesty, but, really, there's few other articles on cultural influence that could rival this. Whether that's a good or bad thing is debatable, but I, for onem want to see this hard work properly recognised. Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's B-class, because it has pretty much all the info that it needs to have. On the other hand, it has some repetition, and its structure needs to be considered. Most importantly, I think, many of the examples listed are unreferenced. I believe that G&S was referenced in these TV shows, etc., but we need citations! I also think some of the information here is disorganized (but since I was the person who threw it together, it is hard for me to fix it), and I also doubt that it is anywhere near GA-class. Just my opinion. I think that you should take a very critical look at it and see whether you can help out with referencing, etc. I think that all these movie and tv references can be found somewhere on the 'net, but hanged if I know where. -- Ssilvers 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, though to some extent the shows themselves will serve as a reference. It's certainly not at, say, Featured List level, in any case.
I'll try and dig out some references and have a copyedit after I nap. Hey, this is off-topic, but ho does Ediacaran biota look to you? Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ediacaran looks like a GA to me. There are some minor formatting issues, and the External links should go below the references. Looks pretty complete and nicely illustrated, though. As for the references here, we need to prove that G&S was mentioned in a significant way, in each of the cases. For instance, we say that a song was sung in such-and-such a TV episode, but we need to give the evidence so that a reader can verify it. -- Ssilvers 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, I'm sorry if I come across as a tough grader!
My concern is that the page doesn't really have much structure; it's just a loosely-organized set of miscellaneous facts. Parts of it are close to listcruft. I believe Ssilvers said (elsewhere) that a lot of the material was basically a salvage job from other articles — material that had no proper home, but that we didn't want to lose. IMO, a good-quality article on this subject would read more like an essay (properly sourced, of course), rather than being a hodge-podge list of the cultural references that happen to be available.
I also think that, among the G&S articles in WP, this one ought to be pretty low priority to get to GA-quality. Obviously this is a hobby, which means people can work on whatever they want. But in terms of priority, the Mikado, Pinafore and Pirates articles are going to attract a lot more attention than this one. Marc Shepherd 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no: We need to get rid of the list-cruft on all the other articles, and getting this one to GA might help with that. Mikado's not going to pass if it has a Cultural Influence section full of list cruft worse than this. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what the problem is...

[edit]

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)[reply]

Not that anybody cares but ...

[edit]

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)[reply]

exaggeration

[edit]

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)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan Society

[edit]

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)[reply]

There is no such article. Please stop adding links to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There must be such article. Redirects are valid. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lorem, there is, indeed, a Gilbert and Sullivan Society in London, which has several affiliated branches throughout the world, such as the Gilbert and Sullivan Socity of New York. However, I doubt that the society is notable. It is merely an appreciation society, with a small membership of fans. Even if there was such an article, the links to it that Lorem introduced were used incorrectly. As Vasiliev points out above, the many links that you introduced to various G&S societies were not to the G&S Society itself, or even to its branches, but instead seemed to be pointing to amateur producing societies, some of which have their own articles, but most of which are not notable. You merely introduced confusion. Sorry to be blunt, but the changes you made were not helpful. I am reverting your incorrect links again. Please discuss any changes at WP:G&S. If you revert my changes again, I shall consider your edits to be vandalism. On the other hand, if you wish to work with us constructively, we would be pleased to discuss the issue with you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I vehemently disdagree and protest treating my edits as vandalism. This kind of behavior is not constructive. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

My final word. I have little knowledge of G&SS. I run across this term in an article about a software engineer, Mark Zbikowski, and it was part of surprize info for me. Therefore I did some reading and introduced the link and redirects in hopes that experts in G&S will expand the information I found. I was unpleasantly surprized with exactly opposite attitude: my small piece of extra info was called vandalism ???!!!. I am leaving this subject with a feeling of disgust. After all, I am not adding an info about my guirlfriend to be treated like that. I dont' realy care about theatre to insist on my edits. If you feel that lack of information is good for wikipedia, so be it. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

<sigh> You still don't get it. Yes, I admit I may be confused. But wikipedia, instead of providing further info on the subject (which, as it easily seen, of widespread notice), in fact suppresses any info. And thank you for a non-apology. You called me vandal and now you are sorry for me. A nice attitude, quite in the style of Gilbert and Sullivan pieces of absurd. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Such situation would actually be called Kafkaesque, not Gilbertian.

I suggest that you reformulate the original article, to make it clearer in what type of society Mark Zbikowski is. By the way, are there really many R&H performing societies? And, pardon me, Sherlock Holmes performing societies? I thought Conan Doyle wrote novels and short stories about him. I do not know any English-language dramatists except Shakespeare and Gilbert who have a reasonably large amount of societies dedicated to them. vvvt 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

'and societies'

[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bridgeplayer: "and societies" is redundant. There is no difference between "society", "group", "players", "company", "troupe", "club", "Savoyards", etc. when describing amateur performing organizations, which is what the sentence and section is about. Groups and societies are synonymous, but "groups" is clearer. The word societies is one of the reasons for all the confusion here. It is a common term within the musical theatre community, but it may be confusing to the general reader of this encyclopedia. Bridgeplayer, let's take a step back. Look at the edits that Lorem made over the past few days on about a dozen or more Gilbert and Sullivan related articles. First what he (or she?) did was to change "Gilbert and Sullivan" Society (or societies) into "Gilbert and Sullivan Society" in many articles. He did this indiscriminately, not understanding that there is a difference between the Gilbert and Sullivan society -- the organization in London -- and G&S societies that produce shows. So the links, in many cases were simply wrong, and in others they were an unhelpful redirect away from the topic being discussed. When I reverted these links, pointing this out, he reverted me. Then we had the exchange on his talk page (which is fully copied to this page, above). BTW, I like bridge too. Do you play contract or duplicate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)Bridgeplayer (talk)

In the spirit of compromise, how about "groups or 'societies'", which clarifies that they are the same. Thanks for the clarification re: bridge play above. Note, by the way, that the names of the G&S groups in NY are, or have been: American Savoyards, Light Opera of Manhattan, Ten-Ten Players (or Theatre 10-10), New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players, the Blue Hill Troupe and the Village Light Opera Group. Not a society to be found. Other bluelinked G&S groups on Wikipedia include: Washington Savoyards, Derby Gilbert and Sullivan Company, Carl Rosa Opera Company, D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, Essgee Entertainment, Light Opera Oklahoma, Light Opera Works, Ohio Light Opera, Opera a la Carte, Opera della Luna, Skylight opera theatre, Savoy Company. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; good solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_impact_of_Gilbert_and_Sullivan&oldid=1201274005"