![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've removed the following:
although I don't know for sure that it's false, on the grounds that publishing misinformation is worse than omitting useful information.
Do we have contemporary references for either of these? They both sound like urban myths to me. See also http://www.albemarle-london.com/importance.html . Matthew Woodcraft
Horaz ( talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was about to reverse the change of spelling of Gwendolen, after a quick look on IMDB showed that both the 1952 and 2002 film list the character name as Gwendolyn, however I thought I'd best go to source and had a quick look at Wilde: Complete Works and indeed it is listed as Gwendolen. Mintguy
Can someone please explain the sense in which this belongs in Category:LGBT literature. Yes, the author was gay (or bi, depending on one's construction of these words), but that clearly doesn't suffice to put the work in that category any more than a random Patricia Highsmith novel. Some have read "hidden" gay themes into the play, but some have done the same with Shakespeare. At a quick look, the other works in the category have explicitly gay themes (though I'm not so sure about Mrs. Dalloway, which I haven't read, and I believe may be a similar case, inclusion being a comment on the author, not the work.
Is this category well-defined? And if so what are the criteria for including this play? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. I just came on to this talk page to say the same thing. Seeing as there has been no reply to Jmabel supporting this categorisation I am removing it now. Oska 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the opinions expressed in the recent edits that describe the play, and Algernon, as "witty" and "charming" but this is an encyclopedia article, not a review. We should either find someone authoritative who said that, and cite what they said, or get it out of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:03 (UTC)
I've added in what I believe to be the case about the four-act version of the play. I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy of this, but the basic facts are definately correct. If anyone can expand/correct it I'd be very greatful. Donald Ian Rankin 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I see someone has recently changed all references to Algernon's friend from "Jack" to "John". A quick Google search seems to go about 50-50 on this. Certainly the article should mention that he is referred to as both. Weirdly, the version of the script we link from the article calls him John Worthing, J.P. in the list of personae, but "Jack" throughout the script. And, of course, names figure prominently in the play, including this one:
Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moments solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest.
-- Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I think this should help clear a few things up:
"Jack. Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much nicer names. I think Jack, for instance, a charming name.
Gwendolen. Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest"
"Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John!" -Tim- THobern 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article says Earnest and redirects from Ernest, but the article itself states Ernest. Shouldn't this be changed? 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone had created a separate article on Miss Prism, which seems to me excessive; I've turned it back into a redirect to this article. I did not add back the following sentence, though it should be there if we expand to having remarks on each character, which we probably should: "Before becoming a governess, she was a lowly nursemaid and part-time novelist. She represents education within Victorian society, and harbours romantic feelings for Rev. Canon Chausable, D. D. Originally played by the actress Mrs George Cunnings." - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to know how many different ways Earnest made a mochary of the courtship and engagement processes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.135.106.226 ( talk • contribs) 7 June 2006.
From the point of view of having only seen the recent dramatised version, I thought that, at the end, Jack's real name is not discovered to be Ernest. In this version he reads the book on his lineage and proclaims that his name is Ernest. Their Aunt however reads the book and it states another name, Robert to my recollection, but she keeps quiet about it. Possibly this is only int he modern version.
81.132.37.76 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In the first comment on this page, Mathew Woodcraft says that he has removed a comment claiming that TIOBE had a definite gay subtext. It appears that he (or someone else) has gone further than this, by informing us that "it has been erroneously claimed", etc. Whilst I personally couldnt agree more, this seems like a pretty bold statement, especially as in the BA course I am doing atm, (English at Manchester Metropolitan University - one of the top 100 in the country), it is taught as almost factual. This is part of an annoying trend I am seeing in all of academic literary criticism. In assignments, etc, it is impossible to get top marks without claiming some sexual subtext in even the most innocent text. ANZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.28.116 ( talk • contribs) 26 Dec 2005
I have changed the article's description of Algernon as wealthy. In Lady Bracknell's words to the (truly wealthy) Cecily: "Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing but his debts to depend upon" and as she later says of Algernon to Jack: "He has nothing, but he looks everything." Nandt1 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no way an article of this much length and detail can still qualify as a stub. Could someone from a WikiProject this article's part of please reassess it as at least start-class, perhaps even B-class? Either that, or redefine "stub" to include articles with 10+ sections... Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a spelling mistake to me. Is it? Alpheus ( talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Her name was probably actually based on the "prunes and prism" of the chaperon character (Mrs. General) in Dickens' Little Dorrit (this would have been a fairly well-known reference in 1895)... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Other contributors continue to amend this article to suggest that, at the time of losing the baby, Miss Prism worked within Lord Bracknell's household. This seems unlikely. The connection between the two that we have in the text is merely that she left Lord Bracknell's house with the baby. But the baby belonged to Lady Bracknell's sister, not to Lord (or Lady) Bracknell. Does it not seem more likely, then, that baby Ernest would have been entrusted to a nurse-maid employed by his parents than to one working for Lord Bracknell? Would Lord Bracknell have employed a nurse-maid at all at this time? Gwendolen (Lord and Lady Bracknell's daughter) is clearly several years younger than her suitor Jack. She does speak of a brother, Gerald, who is given to proposing to her friends "for practice," which may or may not imply an older brother, so it might just be possible that the Bracknells at the time of Ernest's loss employed a nurse-maid to look after Gerald, and that this nurse-maid then happened to take Ernest out for a walk by himself and without Gerald. Note, though, that Prism makes it clear that in taking Ernest out for a walk she was following her normal routine...
A further complication is raised by the fact that Lady Bracknell refers to Prism and the baby leaving "Lord Bracknell's house", rather than "our house", raising the question of whether she and Lord Bracknell were even married at the time Ernest was lost. If they were not married, then what was the nephew of (the future) Lady Bracknell doing in Lord Bracknell's house at all? Perhaps the couple were courting or engaged? Overall, it seems more likely that Miss Prism worked for General Moncrieff and his wife (Lady Bracknell's sister) than for the Bracknells, in which case she may merely have passed by Lord Bracknell's house on that fateful morning, perhaps to show the baby off to his aunt and her fiance. Why the future Lady Bracknell would have been at Lord Bracknell's house in the morning (and Prism expecting to find her there), is a question that delicacy forbids us to pursue further.... Nandt1 ( talk) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Where is the article about the Jim Varney movie? That page just redirects here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 ( talk) 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why, but whenever I try to understand the plot, my brain begins to addle. To this day, I don't know who's doing what to whom, and why. I wish someone could explain the plot in ways easier to follow. JohnClarknew ( talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've proposed the stub Lady Lancing be merged into this article. It contains only one interesting fact, i.e., the play's working title. This clearly belongs in a composition section, which normally exist in articles on literary works where there is interesting information to relate. Best, -- Ktlynch ( talk) 13:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This has now been done. -- Ktlynch ( talk) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The following has been part of a longstanding trivia section which I have slowly destroyed by attrition. I'm going to dump the final piece here in case anyone can find a citation, validate the story or work it into the article.
"* At the time the play was written Victoria Station in London was actually two adjacent terminal stations sharing the same name. To the east was the terminal of the decidedly ramshackle London, Chatham and Dover Railway and to the west, the much more fashionable London, Brighton and South Coast Railway—the Brighton Line. Although the two stations shared a dividing wall, there was no interconnection: it was necessary to walk out into the street to pass from one station to the other. Jack explains that he was found in a handbag in the cloakroom at Victoria Station and tries to mitigate the circumstance by assuring Lady Bracknell that it was the more socially acceptable "Brighton line"."
-- Ktlynch ( talk) 09:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It'd be great to get this article to GA status, but it is a good way from ready yet.
*Dablinks-
climax,
Gaiety Theatre,
Robert Ross,
The Saturday Review,
William Archer.
The World also clearly links to the wrong place. Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"Its high farce and witty dialogue have helped make The Importance of Being Earnest Wilde's most enduringly popular play." is not the most neutral of phrases Fixed
Mr. R00t
Talk
22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
*"Wilde was urged to write further plays" By whom? Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"ilde summered with his family at Worthing, where he wrote the play quickly in August.[1] Wilde" repetition Fixed, rephrased enture sentence.----
*"Michael Feingold" Who is he? Fixed He's an American arts critic.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"When Henry James's Guy Domville failed, Alexander agreed to put on the play.[4]" So, wild sent it? Fixed, they corresponded and eventually reached a decision to go ahead.
Ktlynch (
talk)
15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"that ""In my" What's going on there?
*"and few dared to discuss, let alone perform, his work" Hardly neutral, inappropriate tone, Changed wording to sound more neutral. --
Ktlynch (
talk)
17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"was "his first really heartless [one]"." Wilde's first, presumably?
*"William Archer in The World, while agreeing that the play was enjoyable to watch, also picked up on the play's "emptiness", "What can..." needs rephrasing Rephrased. --
Ktlynch (
talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
*"dramatical career. he denied the" Come on... Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Yeah, the whole section could do with prose ironing... Copyedited for flow.--
Ktlynch (
talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
*Same with the first edition section. The line "coincidentally inside a handbag; ironically mimicking the discovery of Jack Worthing as an infant" is not appropriate... Fixed, removed some dramatic/sympathetic wording. --
Ktlynch (
talk)
15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Large section of the composition is unreferenced Fixed, adding source for the film changes.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Almost the entire "in translation" section lacks references; there's even a cite needed tag in there. This section has been entirely re-written, based an an academic article on the subject. --
Ktlynch (
talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
*The adaptations section has very few references, and could do with rewriting entirely. Bulleted lists are generally not a good thing. Re-written as prose, and extra unreferenced, non-notable productiions removed.--
Ktlynch (
talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
*Very inconsistent referencing style. Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Ref 43 is questionable. Fixed, deleted the reference in question.
Ktlynch (
talk)
15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It's been a few days since the last edit to the article, and there are still some fairly major problems outstanding. I think this article needs more work before it's ready for GA status, and I am considering closing this as failed. Thoughts? J Milburn ( talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm gonna give the article another read through, and shout out about anything I see.
I will finish reading it at some point later today. J Milburn ( talk) 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And the rest-
Done. I must say, you are right- this really does feel like a decent good article, while still lacking the comprehensiveness that would be required for a featured article. Once the issues listed above and the lead image issue are resolved, I would be happy to promote. I'd also be happy to give some pointers towards improvements to make before FAC, if you're interested. J Milburn ( talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, concerning the image, we need to find out where it was originally taken from- and I mean originally. Where was it first published? A newspaper? Something like that? Orbicle ( talk · contribs) uploaded the image nearly four years ago, as Image:Cigarettecase.jpeg, on enwp. There are a few options- if it was published at all before 1923, it is public domain in the United States, and may be uploaded freely to the English Wikipedia. If it was published first in the United States before 1923, it's public domain enough for Commons. If we make a reasonable effort to find out the author, but cannot, and it was published more than 70 years ago, it's public domain. Alternatively, if we find out the date of death of the author, regardless of whether it was published, if the author died more than 70 years ago. To be honest, if you have a snoop and don't get anywhere, I'd be happy with it just being tagged with this template and for us to move on- however, be aware that this may come back to bite you at any future FAC, so looking for the right licensing (or a different image altogether) may be worth your while. J Milburn ( talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There hasn't been any update on either side in nearly a month; what's the status of this review? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. The English première of this important play was an historic event without any doubt. An image of a college production is of no merit at all and adds nothing to the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the revival on b'way right now? 74.89.58.36 ( talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that too. If anyone can add in a paragraph about that revival, here are some sources:
[1]
[2].
--
Bialytock&Bloom (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
There is no indication of any notability in this insertion and it seems to be an egregious example of recentism. How does it help readers' understanding of the work? Its only purpose seems to be WP:SOAP and I intend an early revert. Views? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As a major, critically-acclaimed Broadway revival, it should be included in the article. -- Bialytock&Bloom ( talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In no way what so ever is SOAP. Like the user above says it's "a major, critically-acclaimed Broadway revival" I see absolutely no reason not to add it. Even without being shown in theaters, it's notable, now with it in theaters it's very notable. JDDJS ( talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There are several things that make it notable: it will win a Tony Award (it's obvious), and It's on Broadway. If it doesn't "help readers' understanding of the work", how come any productions are mentioned? Even the section title for this discussion ("A revival will be shown in cinemas in June 2011") shows notability, as a production that is distributed to movie theaters would basically be a "film adaptation", and merits it's own article. So why not only two or three sentences?-- Bialytock&Bloom ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Even with the new article being made, there should still be some mention of the new revival on this page. There has been plenty of coverage to warrant at least one sentence about it.
JDDJS (
talk)
15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre talk page about the debate going on here so that a few more editors can weigh in and help end this discussion. If there are clearly more editors opposed to including the revival then in favor, then I promise to give up. JDDJS ( talk) 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed at User talk:Ktlynch, a colleague has kindly sent me some suggestions on how the article might be further improved. These are they:
Some points worth looking at there, I should say. Tim riley ( talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've removed the following:
although I don't know for sure that it's false, on the grounds that publishing misinformation is worse than omitting useful information.
Do we have contemporary references for either of these? They both sound like urban myths to me. See also http://www.albemarle-london.com/importance.html . Matthew Woodcraft
Horaz ( talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was about to reverse the change of spelling of Gwendolen, after a quick look on IMDB showed that both the 1952 and 2002 film list the character name as Gwendolyn, however I thought I'd best go to source and had a quick look at Wilde: Complete Works and indeed it is listed as Gwendolen. Mintguy
Can someone please explain the sense in which this belongs in Category:LGBT literature. Yes, the author was gay (or bi, depending on one's construction of these words), but that clearly doesn't suffice to put the work in that category any more than a random Patricia Highsmith novel. Some have read "hidden" gay themes into the play, but some have done the same with Shakespeare. At a quick look, the other works in the category have explicitly gay themes (though I'm not so sure about Mrs. Dalloway, which I haven't read, and I believe may be a similar case, inclusion being a comment on the author, not the work.
Is this category well-defined? And if so what are the criteria for including this play? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. I just came on to this talk page to say the same thing. Seeing as there has been no reply to Jmabel supporting this categorisation I am removing it now. Oska 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the opinions expressed in the recent edits that describe the play, and Algernon, as "witty" and "charming" but this is an encyclopedia article, not a review. We should either find someone authoritative who said that, and cite what they said, or get it out of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:03 (UTC)
I've added in what I believe to be the case about the four-act version of the play. I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy of this, but the basic facts are definately correct. If anyone can expand/correct it I'd be very greatful. Donald Ian Rankin 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I see someone has recently changed all references to Algernon's friend from "Jack" to "John". A quick Google search seems to go about 50-50 on this. Certainly the article should mention that he is referred to as both. Weirdly, the version of the script we link from the article calls him John Worthing, J.P. in the list of personae, but "Jack" throughout the script. And, of course, names figure prominently in the play, including this one:
Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moments solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest.
-- Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I think this should help clear a few things up:
"Jack. Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much nicer names. I think Jack, for instance, a charming name.
Gwendolen. Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest"
"Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John!" -Tim- THobern 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article says Earnest and redirects from Ernest, but the article itself states Ernest. Shouldn't this be changed? 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone had created a separate article on Miss Prism, which seems to me excessive; I've turned it back into a redirect to this article. I did not add back the following sentence, though it should be there if we expand to having remarks on each character, which we probably should: "Before becoming a governess, she was a lowly nursemaid and part-time novelist. She represents education within Victorian society, and harbours romantic feelings for Rev. Canon Chausable, D. D. Originally played by the actress Mrs George Cunnings." - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to know how many different ways Earnest made a mochary of the courtship and engagement processes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.135.106.226 ( talk • contribs) 7 June 2006.
From the point of view of having only seen the recent dramatised version, I thought that, at the end, Jack's real name is not discovered to be Ernest. In this version he reads the book on his lineage and proclaims that his name is Ernest. Their Aunt however reads the book and it states another name, Robert to my recollection, but she keeps quiet about it. Possibly this is only int he modern version.
81.132.37.76 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In the first comment on this page, Mathew Woodcraft says that he has removed a comment claiming that TIOBE had a definite gay subtext. It appears that he (or someone else) has gone further than this, by informing us that "it has been erroneously claimed", etc. Whilst I personally couldnt agree more, this seems like a pretty bold statement, especially as in the BA course I am doing atm, (English at Manchester Metropolitan University - one of the top 100 in the country), it is taught as almost factual. This is part of an annoying trend I am seeing in all of academic literary criticism. In assignments, etc, it is impossible to get top marks without claiming some sexual subtext in even the most innocent text. ANZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.28.116 ( talk • contribs) 26 Dec 2005
I have changed the article's description of Algernon as wealthy. In Lady Bracknell's words to the (truly wealthy) Cecily: "Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing but his debts to depend upon" and as she later says of Algernon to Jack: "He has nothing, but he looks everything." Nandt1 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no way an article of this much length and detail can still qualify as a stub. Could someone from a WikiProject this article's part of please reassess it as at least start-class, perhaps even B-class? Either that, or redefine "stub" to include articles with 10+ sections... Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a spelling mistake to me. Is it? Alpheus ( talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Her name was probably actually based on the "prunes and prism" of the chaperon character (Mrs. General) in Dickens' Little Dorrit (this would have been a fairly well-known reference in 1895)... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Other contributors continue to amend this article to suggest that, at the time of losing the baby, Miss Prism worked within Lord Bracknell's household. This seems unlikely. The connection between the two that we have in the text is merely that she left Lord Bracknell's house with the baby. But the baby belonged to Lady Bracknell's sister, not to Lord (or Lady) Bracknell. Does it not seem more likely, then, that baby Ernest would have been entrusted to a nurse-maid employed by his parents than to one working for Lord Bracknell? Would Lord Bracknell have employed a nurse-maid at all at this time? Gwendolen (Lord and Lady Bracknell's daughter) is clearly several years younger than her suitor Jack. She does speak of a brother, Gerald, who is given to proposing to her friends "for practice," which may or may not imply an older brother, so it might just be possible that the Bracknells at the time of Ernest's loss employed a nurse-maid to look after Gerald, and that this nurse-maid then happened to take Ernest out for a walk by himself and without Gerald. Note, though, that Prism makes it clear that in taking Ernest out for a walk she was following her normal routine...
A further complication is raised by the fact that Lady Bracknell refers to Prism and the baby leaving "Lord Bracknell's house", rather than "our house", raising the question of whether she and Lord Bracknell were even married at the time Ernest was lost. If they were not married, then what was the nephew of (the future) Lady Bracknell doing in Lord Bracknell's house at all? Perhaps the couple were courting or engaged? Overall, it seems more likely that Miss Prism worked for General Moncrieff and his wife (Lady Bracknell's sister) than for the Bracknells, in which case she may merely have passed by Lord Bracknell's house on that fateful morning, perhaps to show the baby off to his aunt and her fiance. Why the future Lady Bracknell would have been at Lord Bracknell's house in the morning (and Prism expecting to find her there), is a question that delicacy forbids us to pursue further.... Nandt1 ( talk) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Where is the article about the Jim Varney movie? That page just redirects here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 ( talk) 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why, but whenever I try to understand the plot, my brain begins to addle. To this day, I don't know who's doing what to whom, and why. I wish someone could explain the plot in ways easier to follow. JohnClarknew ( talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've proposed the stub Lady Lancing be merged into this article. It contains only one interesting fact, i.e., the play's working title. This clearly belongs in a composition section, which normally exist in articles on literary works where there is interesting information to relate. Best, -- Ktlynch ( talk) 13:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This has now been done. -- Ktlynch ( talk) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The following has been part of a longstanding trivia section which I have slowly destroyed by attrition. I'm going to dump the final piece here in case anyone can find a citation, validate the story or work it into the article.
"* At the time the play was written Victoria Station in London was actually two adjacent terminal stations sharing the same name. To the east was the terminal of the decidedly ramshackle London, Chatham and Dover Railway and to the west, the much more fashionable London, Brighton and South Coast Railway—the Brighton Line. Although the two stations shared a dividing wall, there was no interconnection: it was necessary to walk out into the street to pass from one station to the other. Jack explains that he was found in a handbag in the cloakroom at Victoria Station and tries to mitigate the circumstance by assuring Lady Bracknell that it was the more socially acceptable "Brighton line"."
-- Ktlynch ( talk) 09:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It'd be great to get this article to GA status, but it is a good way from ready yet.
*Dablinks-
climax,
Gaiety Theatre,
Robert Ross,
The Saturday Review,
William Archer.
The World also clearly links to the wrong place. Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"Its high farce and witty dialogue have helped make The Importance of Being Earnest Wilde's most enduringly popular play." is not the most neutral of phrases Fixed
Mr. R00t
Talk
22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
*"Wilde was urged to write further plays" By whom? Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"ilde summered with his family at Worthing, where he wrote the play quickly in August.[1] Wilde" repetition Fixed, rephrased enture sentence.----
*"Michael Feingold" Who is he? Fixed He's an American arts critic.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"When Henry James's Guy Domville failed, Alexander agreed to put on the play.[4]" So, wild sent it? Fixed, they corresponded and eventually reached a decision to go ahead.
Ktlynch (
talk)
15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"that ""In my" What's going on there?
*"and few dared to discuss, let alone perform, his work" Hardly neutral, inappropriate tone, Changed wording to sound more neutral. --
Ktlynch (
talk)
17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*"was "his first really heartless [one]"." Wilde's first, presumably?
*"William Archer in The World, while agreeing that the play was enjoyable to watch, also picked up on the play's "emptiness", "What can..." needs rephrasing Rephrased. --
Ktlynch (
talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
*"dramatical career. he denied the" Come on... Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Yeah, the whole section could do with prose ironing... Copyedited for flow.--
Ktlynch (
talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
*Same with the first edition section. The line "coincidentally inside a handbag; ironically mimicking the discovery of Jack Worthing as an infant" is not appropriate... Fixed, removed some dramatic/sympathetic wording. --
Ktlynch (
talk)
15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Large section of the composition is unreferenced Fixed, adding source for the film changes.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Almost the entire "in translation" section lacks references; there's even a cite needed tag in there. This section has been entirely re-written, based an an academic article on the subject. --
Ktlynch (
talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
*The adaptations section has very few references, and could do with rewriting entirely. Bulleted lists are generally not a good thing. Re-written as prose, and extra unreferenced, non-notable productiions removed.--
Ktlynch (
talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
*Very inconsistent referencing style. Fixed.
Ktlynch (
talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
*Ref 43 is questionable. Fixed, deleted the reference in question.
Ktlynch (
talk)
15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It's been a few days since the last edit to the article, and there are still some fairly major problems outstanding. I think this article needs more work before it's ready for GA status, and I am considering closing this as failed. Thoughts? J Milburn ( talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm gonna give the article another read through, and shout out about anything I see.
I will finish reading it at some point later today. J Milburn ( talk) 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And the rest-
Done. I must say, you are right- this really does feel like a decent good article, while still lacking the comprehensiveness that would be required for a featured article. Once the issues listed above and the lead image issue are resolved, I would be happy to promote. I'd also be happy to give some pointers towards improvements to make before FAC, if you're interested. J Milburn ( talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, concerning the image, we need to find out where it was originally taken from- and I mean originally. Where was it first published? A newspaper? Something like that? Orbicle ( talk · contribs) uploaded the image nearly four years ago, as Image:Cigarettecase.jpeg, on enwp. There are a few options- if it was published at all before 1923, it is public domain in the United States, and may be uploaded freely to the English Wikipedia. If it was published first in the United States before 1923, it's public domain enough for Commons. If we make a reasonable effort to find out the author, but cannot, and it was published more than 70 years ago, it's public domain. Alternatively, if we find out the date of death of the author, regardless of whether it was published, if the author died more than 70 years ago. To be honest, if you have a snoop and don't get anywhere, I'd be happy with it just being tagged with this template and for us to move on- however, be aware that this may come back to bite you at any future FAC, so looking for the right licensing (or a different image altogether) may be worth your while. J Milburn ( talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There hasn't been any update on either side in nearly a month; what's the status of this review? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. The English première of this important play was an historic event without any doubt. An image of a college production is of no merit at all and adds nothing to the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the revival on b'way right now? 74.89.58.36 ( talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that too. If anyone can add in a paragraph about that revival, here are some sources:
[1]
[2].
--
Bialytock&Bloom (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
There is no indication of any notability in this insertion and it seems to be an egregious example of recentism. How does it help readers' understanding of the work? Its only purpose seems to be WP:SOAP and I intend an early revert. Views? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As a major, critically-acclaimed Broadway revival, it should be included in the article. -- Bialytock&Bloom ( talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In no way what so ever is SOAP. Like the user above says it's "a major, critically-acclaimed Broadway revival" I see absolutely no reason not to add it. Even without being shown in theaters, it's notable, now with it in theaters it's very notable. JDDJS ( talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There are several things that make it notable: it will win a Tony Award (it's obvious), and It's on Broadway. If it doesn't "help readers' understanding of the work", how come any productions are mentioned? Even the section title for this discussion ("A revival will be shown in cinemas in June 2011") shows notability, as a production that is distributed to movie theaters would basically be a "film adaptation", and merits it's own article. So why not only two or three sentences?-- Bialytock&Bloom ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Even with the new article being made, there should still be some mention of the new revival on this page. There has been plenty of coverage to warrant at least one sentence about it.
JDDJS (
talk)
15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre talk page about the debate going on here so that a few more editors can weigh in and help end this discussion. If there are clearly more editors opposed to including the revival then in favor, then I promise to give up. JDDJS ( talk) 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed at User talk:Ktlynch, a colleague has kindly sent me some suggestions on how the article might be further improved. These are they:
Some points worth looking at there, I should say. Tim riley ( talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)