Talk:La Gaîté Lyrique

More relevant information

This article has too much information on the prehistory of this theatre and too little on the actual topic. At some point we need to add that. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only been going for six months, but please add any available information — as indeed I originally suggested to you before I started the article. --Klein zach 00:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the orchestra pit large enough for 40 musicians"

Robert.Allen: I see you have put a citation tag on this. Do you realize that this comes from the Wikipedia article on Théâtre de la Gaîté? It's not tagged there, you know. Why the stricter standards here? In any case it seems completely reasonable. A number of sources refer to Offenbach being able to use a full orchestra there (e.g. [1]). I don't have time to look any further about this now . . . . --Klein zach 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now where you got it. Of course, we can't cite that article. I am not intending to chide you in particular. This tag serves as a reminder to me as much as you (and other editors), that we need at some point to find the source of this rather specific number. The source may provide us with some more interesting details, so it will likely be worth the effort. We should also try to remember to add the source to both articles, if and when we find it. Thanks for the feedback. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the number (40) — I'm sure it's a rough approximation. Reorganizing Théâtre de la Gaîté is going to take some time. Better to do the structure of the articles first and worry about little details later. --Klein zach 06:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphée aux enfers (1874) at the Gaîtés had an orchestra of 60 plus a military band of 40 (probably used on stage?), this is according to Faris p. 169. I think 40 is on the low side. I'm still looking for more on this. (Would you like me to split the article? BTW, I've found some info about Germaine Roger at the Gaîté. I hope to add some of it in a couple of days. Pretty busy with other things tomorrow, if you would like to, please go ahead.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Split Théâtre de la Gaîté? Yes, by all means go ahead. --Klein zach 08:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK. I'm now working on a draft of Théâtre de la Gaîté (rue Papin). Maybe you would like to work on the earlier stuff? --Klein zach 16:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caps for "large hall"

Greetings, Kleinzach! Either way is fine with me, but I was just following what was done on the web page that was cited: "Architectural Project: The Venue" "The project has three major performance venues, which are situated at the heart of the building : The large hall, the small hall and the auditorium.". I think they must regard this as more contempo. I admit I am a bit old-fashioned myself, and at first used caps, but then lowered them. :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either they are particular names, taking capitals in English, or they are merely descriptive words, in which case they don't. --Klein zach 23:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now find that upper case is used on a different page ([2]). I agree, upper case is preferable, and it is certainly supported by the source. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Repetitious info' quote/unquote

Robert.Allen writes: "Look at all the repetitious info you added to the article on La Gaîté Lyrique. It's something that is quite easy to fall into. I mentioned it at the time, but I didn't delete it." [3].

I would like an explanation. Given that this is the main article on the subject, what information is repetitious? What information should be removed from where? Can we be more straightforward about this? --Klein zach 23:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we focus on the positive? We've done a lot of good work together on this article. The History section has info which is mainly about the theatre before it became La Gaîté Lyrique (the digital music center constructed beginning in 2003). I don't remember ever saying that it should be removed, If you look above, you will see what I really said was: "This article has too much information on the prehistory of this theatre and too little on the actual topic. At some point we need to add that." Which we have now done. With the additional information on the digital center itself, the balance is better, and it serves as background, so I don't really see it as a problem. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on La Gaîté Lyrique. 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) 00:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on La Gaîté Lyrique. 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) 20:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]