This page 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. |
Hmm. It does strike me that this article concentrates a bit too much on Sullivan, and not enough about Gilbert. Might it not be better to cover, say, the German Reed operas, Engaged, Charity, Princess Toto, Mountebanks, and such instead of the long diversions into Sullivan's work?
Noticed that too. Will do what I can Adam Cuerden 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
....You know, I just checked. The Mountain sylph has practically NOTHING to do with Iolanthe except that both involve mortals marrying fairies. To claim that Gilbert parodied he plot of it in Iolanthe can only be an urban myth. I'm deleting the reference, and will put in a tracing of L'elisir through Sorcerer and Mountebanks instead. Adam Cuerden 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and the Gilbert and Sullivan article. It would probably be appropriate if material related to the collaboration were on the latter page. This page would focus on Gilbert's background and accomplishments as an individual. Their collaboration would be described only briefly here, making reference to the 'G&S' article where the details would reside. Marc Shepherd 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It's probably worth briefly detailing Gildbert's most famous works, but, aye, some of it ought to go. Will try and push the biography forward through the Clay collaboration and important pre-Trial by Jury playts this weekend, and revise the Gilbert and Sullivan section after that, but...
Weel, if you can do anything, do so =) Adam Cuerden 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the following, for being inaccurate (Gilbert did not begin to have a directorial influence for some time after his marriage - he didn't have sufficient power), as well as not fitting in to the revised, expanded text I'm working on. (I have already removed some editorial bashing of Gilbert by the original author.)
On the upside, starting to get a reasonable perspective on Gilbert's life and works. Downside: Have only revised up to 1869. Ah, well. It'll come in time Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find Gilbert's famous quote about how he allowed himself to be underpaid for Dulcamara, and was told never to give up rights for something that good so cheaply again, and didn't? It'd make a very good reference for the controversy regarding Uncle Baby.
Also, I must admit to a little doubt: I'm reasonably sure it was Terrence Rees who brought Uncle Baby to wider knowledge, but I'm not certain. Anyone know for sure? Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have briefly added a note about Gilbert's work on this, however, that really needs to become a paragraph in its own right, particularly as Sullivan's knighthood had more to do with the Savoy hotel than his musical work, so the bringing up of it is inappropriate anyway. I'm working on it. Adam Cuerden 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have used two quotes under fair use: One from Jessie Bond's autobiography, which is, as far as I can tell, in copyright, and one from Gilbert's story "My Maiden Brief" - out of copyright, but I took said quote from a modern collection. I can get it from a non-copyrighted version if this is needful, but it'd require going to the National Library of Scotland and getting appropriate photocopies. Must I? Adam Cuerden 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article will obviously need a fair bit of cleanup, however, the reworking is still in progress. Since no-one else seems to be working on this, I'll clean up once I'm done. Probably going to need to move the La Viviandre quotes to a seperate article. Burlesques by W.S. Gilbert?
The section on the collaboration with Sullivan says:
I am not aware of any source that the gap in their social status was the cause (or even partly the cause) of their many rifts. Most of their rifts were very specifically caused by Sullivan's objections to Gilbert's libretto ideas. As soon as Gilbert came up with an idea to the composer's liking, the collaboration would resume. The "carpet quarrel," of course, was a fight over contractual issues.
The current edit also says:
I am not aware of any source for the claim that Gilbert was a loner, or that he "did not choose" to socialize with "wealthy and titled" people. Gilbert, in fact, had a quite active social life. He was also married, and hence clearly not a "loner." He and Sullivan had different social spheres, but that could as well be described as a positive choice for certain companions, rather than a negative choice as implied by the statement.
Lastly, the current edit says:
I am not aware of any source for the claim that Sullivan's "vested interest in the status quo" had anything to do with his objections to Gilbert's plots. What Sullivan did object to was the sometimes mechanical nature of Gilbert's librettos, particularly those that depended on supernatural intervention. Marc Shepherd 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline on linking suggests what should not be linked:
It says he was teaching two "young ladies" to swim. I have seen other sources that say "young girls" or "children". Were they adults or children? -- Ssilvers 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the drowning girl? RaqiwasSushi ( talk) 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | Sullivan, too, had a career of his own. Two ballets, a symphony, a cello concerto, and number of large-scale choral pieces, incidental music to five of Shakespeare's plays and, of course, other operatic works, including Ivanhoe, which opened Carte's new Royal English Opera House (now the Palace Theatre) in Cambridge Circus in 1891.
Sullivan was knighted in 1883, not long after the company moved to its new home, the Savoy Theatre. However this knighthood was not for his popular and financially rewarding work with Gilbert, but more for his contributions to musical education and his more 'serious' music. One such work was the musical drama The Martyr of Antioch, first produced late in 1881, for which Gilbert arranged the original epic poem into something suitable for music, and some of the song lyrics in that work are, in fact, Gilbert's original work. Gilbert was not knighted until 1907, in recognition of his contributions to drama. He was, however, the first British writer ever to receive a knighthood for his plays alone — earlier dramatist knights such as Sir William Davenant and Sir John Vanbrugh, were knighted for political and other services. |
” |
This meanders into Sullivan inappropriately.
“ | Gilbert filled his librettos with a strange mixture of cynicism about the world and "topsy-turvydom" in which the social order was turned upside down. These subjects sometimes did not satisfy Sullivan's desire for realism and emotional content. | ” |
This is perfectly acceptable, but misplaced.
I should say, however, that I don't think chronology is working as an organiser. Going to shift this about into more coherent sections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/umgass/files/gasbag227.pdf - Wonderful research by Kevin Wachs, and some very quotable stuff. May be more relevant for The Pirates of Penzance? Adam Cuerden talk 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am deliberatly not commenting in the Peer Review section. As I understand it, this is reserved for people who haven't had a role in editing the article—editors who have no stake in the game.
Nevertheless, these are my views on what needs work in the article.
As a general matter, we must carefully avoid what some editors call the "main article syndrome" — the urge to drop one's favorite factoids into the main article, rather than focusing on main themes. Sideline facts usually belong in subsidiary articles. The purpose of the main article is to provide an overview of the overall subject. Marc Shepherd 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of the big grey box, what if we revised it into a ist with a short description of each piece? Would that be useful? Of course, it'd probably need spun off to another article. Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Cut much of the material moved to Ages Ago as well as the following:
SERGEANT SULPIZIO:
MARIA:
It seemed necessary. Everything needs cited, but it shouldn't be hard to go back and do that hwhen at Uni. Adam Cuerden talk 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
...Er, oops. That should read "the characters from a melodrama brought to life." Adam Cuerden talk 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Revised things a bit. Moved Engaged into proper chronological place, etc. Really needs expansion of the Gilbert and Sullivan years from H.M.S. Pinafore on, the Carpet Quarrel, the interregnum, Utopia and Grand Duke, and later life. Also needs more information on him as a person and a vast expansion of his directoral influence. But at least it's a start. Adam Cuerden talk 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"I hold that there is no such antick fellow as your bombastical hero who doth so earnestly spout forth his folly as to make his hearers believe that he in unconscious of all incongruity; whereas, he who doth so mark, label, and underscore his antick speeches as to show that he is alive to their absurdity seemeth to utter them under protest, and to take part with his audience against himself. |
- Hamlet's speech to the players in Gilbert's burlesque Rosencratz and Guildenstern |
Good quote, but too short of a section to use it at present. HAve added it as a cite. Adam Cuerden talk 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose to add the Fallen Fairies affair next:
Adam Cuerden
talk 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Nancy MacKintosh is more important: Should do her in a block, starting at Utopia Limited. Adam Cuerden talk 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Right. I think the Fallen Fairies stuff goes in the Fallen Fairies article. It should not clutter up the W. S. Gilbert article. -- Ssilvers 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate until the editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan" and resulted in Gilbert sending his correct details back.
This seems to be trying to say something, but I honestly don't know what. Adam Cuerden talk 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, but since that fact isn't ever established, it's hard to follow the logic as written Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that I have redlinked, in the article, the Gilbert plays that I think we need to write up next. Regards, -- Ssilvers 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've ref-tagged some of the in-line references, but note we now have a mix of two sorts of references (web-links and footnotes), which is bad because of two different numbering schemes. I don't think this worth fixing until we have the article ready for GA review: It will only need to be fixed over and over. Adam Cuerden talk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Fix The Importance of Being Earnest article to link to Engaged (play) Adam Cuerden talk 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I've now done all the work on the article that I wish to do. I'll look over anything else that you do, but I think it contains all the basic info I would put in. I still think it could be expanded (or a section consolidated) on what W.S.G. was like as a person and his home life (including his relationship with women in general and something very brief on Nancy). I have a little of this near the end. I also moved the "director" stuff up higher, because he started directing before, or in, 1871, and because it explains something about his process that is helpful in understanding the discussion of the collaboration years -- Ssilvers 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a separate article called List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works. -- Ssilvers 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the Utopia poster really appropriate, or should it be lost, in favour of, say, Gilbert's illustration of Put a Penny in the Slot? Adam Cuerden talk 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why. Looks fine to me. Anyone else have an opinion? -- Ssilvers 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great work on the article, guys. I upgraded it to "A", because I think it's reasonably complete and has a good bibliography. However, unless you want to go through and add a lot of page numbers, I don't think it will get GA or FA from the wikipedians, because it does not have enough in-line references. However, I don't care about that. It is a nice, informative article, and I am frankly happy with it (except that we need to add more of G's most notable plays, as soon as we can get articles up). -- Ssilvers 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The Wolfson reference is pretty much passim, or, at least, big chunks. He keeps making unfavourable comparisons, particularly to His Excellency. Call it 11, 12, 14,61 and 65, if we must be definate - he mainly concentrates on His Excellency for praise, coming between the two main subjects in question. 64-65 is the biggest section.
Adam Cuerden
talk 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arthur William à Beckett - Now this is interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we add Pygmalion and Galatea (1871) to the list of plays? It's reasonably important, it has an article, but is it sufficiently notable? Adam Cuerden talk 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
Additional comments :
Even though the article normally would pass, it will be on hold in order to remove some of the weasel words present throughout the text and to appropriately tag pictures. Lincher 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved some of The Palace of Truth's observations to a sub-article. It was bogging down in details, but no description of the play. Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Jones, John Bush, "W.S. Gilbert's Contributions to Fun, 1865-1874" by John Bush Jones, published in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, vol 73 (April 1969), pp253-266 - I am 99.9% sure this reference deals in full with Gilbert's leaving Fun, but as I do not currently have the article at hand, I am marking it here, just in case it was a different source that I'm mixing up. That said, this is exceedingly unlikely, as I used this source nearly every day for a month or so last year.
Adam Cuerden
talk 22:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
All the requested comments which were little were applied on the article. Wow, this is a throughout great copy-editor. Thanks for being such a fast-paced, well-versed writer. Cheers, Lincher 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've spun Off the Bibliographic section - I've linked to it, not the full list, as I think it's somewhat easier to use, since it has commentary. Adam Cuerden talk 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
But its wrong! It is not referring to his burlesques at all, but to his fairy comedies, and comparing them to burlesque. I think this is misleading. See my change. -- Ssilvers 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it does need to be a little drier. First of all, it needs to say "Selected bibliography...." Second, we can say what the piece concerns, and how the work fits into the context of Gilbert's career. But I think you ought to be rather spare in characterizing each piece, for instance in what the satire means. Let the link speak for itself. Ssilvers
I love to be a pain. Here we go. This is ultra-fussy.
IT SAYS: "...librettist best known for his fourteen operatic collaborations...." This is exactly accurate in describing the subject of this article. -- Ssilvers 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I mark this up as I fix it. - it makes it much easier to see what still needs done. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, I just pressed "Enter" by mistake. Here are a few more.
*"With his work along these lines, Gilbert set the ground for later playwrights such as
George Bernard Shaw and
Oscar Wilde to be able to flourish on the English stage." Ho hum. Assertion without a cite.
O.K, that's enough for just now, more later. Mess around with this all you like, Adam. You might like to strike each complaint as you provide a cite. Cheers, Moreschi 20:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Helpful hint to future citers: I've gone through Crowther's Life of W.S. Gilbert and cited everything I could use it for - an article by a respected, published scholar available online is useful. I think the Gayden Wren one has a few more. I'll do that next.
The first one is Crowther. The second is Stedman 1996, but I don't have the page #. -- Ssilvers 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The one you call "CrowtherLife". ALSO: the WP MOS does not require a reference in the first sentence to prove that Gilbert is a librettist. The entire article makes it abundantly clear that he is a librettist. Clicking on this reference will not add to anyone's understanding of the article. I am removing the ref, but adding it to External links. -- Ssilvers 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
CITATION PROCESS FINISHED (for now)
Adam Cuerden
talk 18 Oct, 2006
Sometimes you have < ref name=JessieBond >, but sometimes you have a different kind of reference to Bond's book. Since you are trying to standardise the refs, you ought to search for bond throughout the code and make the all the same. I note that you are referring to the online version of her memoirs, and we also have them in the References section in book form. Is all this according to the MOS? I am just pointing this out to you. Personally, I don't care much about the ref format. -- Ssilvers 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As some day it may happen that the bronze star must be found
I've got a little list, I've got a little list
Of unreferencèd statements that might well be underground
And that never would be missed...
Another list of stuff-to-cite. Don't rejoice yet Adam, I told you there was more on the way. Right, here we go...
Will cite this up later.
Adam Cuerden
talk 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Huge congratulations to both Adam Cuerden and Ssilvers for their work on this Gesamtkunstwerk. Impressive stuff. Moreschi 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my problem: We are looking up the easisest-to-access sources, not necessarily the best researched, most authoritative ones. The best ones are listed in the Reference list below. So, in fact, this exercise is simply making sure that the online sources get more play than the serious scholarship. That's a shame. Also, if an editor previously wrote something good from a good source, but s/he is not here now to defend that prose, it is getting changed to say something closer to what some online source says, because that is what is easy for Adam to look up. So, even though Crowther's little bio of Gilbert is a very good little bio, ultimately, adding a bunch of refs to Jessie Bond's memoir and Crowther's little bio (instead of his excellent book) is not really helping the reader. Readers who want to know more than what we are telling them in this article should read Stedman's and Crowthers' and a few other excellent books. -- Ssilvers 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That cite looks good, but the formatting is messed up. It needs fixing. Moreschi 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So that's where the kidnapping story comes from (5th paragraph from the end)
Petaholmes edit shows it: The lead for this article cxould use a little more work: The first sentence doesn't flow into what follows. Any ideas as to what should be added, or do you think a rewrite will do? Adam Cuerden talk 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense - moving from the most general to specifics is logical and flows well, and likely fixes all problems. Adam Cuerden talk 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"During this time, Gilbert and Sullivan also collaborated on one other work, the oratorio The Martyr of Antioch, first produced late in 1881."
What about the parlour ballads (Distant Shore, the Love that Loves me Not, Sweethearts)? Need we mention them, or clarify with "one other major work" or something? Adam Cuerden talk 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Gilbert moved to Grim's Dyke in 1890 and, in 1893 was named a Justice of the Peace in Harrow Weald. When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate with the publication. The editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as merely "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan", which resulted in Gilbert sending back his version of the entry
This is Stedman, isn't it? Last significant uncited fact. Adam Cuerden talk 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Justice of the Peace. In addition to lots of others, see:
http://www.lyricoperasandiego.com/Education/PeopleGilbert.htm As to Who's Who, I don't remember where I saw it, and a quick search did not turn it up. It might be Steadman, but I'm not sure. Cut it if you like, although it would be a shame to cut interesting stuff that makes the article better. --
Ssilvers 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate with the publication. The editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as merely "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan", which resulted in Gilbert sending back his version of the entry.
Figured that we might as well get FA whilst we're waiting for it to be checked, so a temporary move seemed pragmatic. Anyway, it was somewhat awkwardly placed. Adam Cuerden talk 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
They seem to be subdivisions of the same place, but Hicks and Terriss say Magistrate at Pinner (Might well be both, or the boundaries may have shifted, etc), but, anyway, I've changed it to Pinner, unless you think it's wrong Adam Cuerden talk 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Try page 281. See [1] She also refers to him as a magistrate, e.g. when discussing "Charity". [2]. CrowtherLife says "In 1893 he had been appointed a local JP, and this occupied part of his time for the rest of his life...." -- Ssilvers 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
We could say "in Middlesex". "In Middlesex" is correct, and it avoids the unimportant point of whether his jurisdiction covered all of Middlesex or just a part of it, and exactly where in Middlesex he "sat" on the bench. If you agree, please go ahead and make the change. -- Ssilvers 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll e-mail Crowther. Stedman's index certainly leaves something to be desired. -- Ssilvers 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good now. -- Ssilvers 17:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thought I'd engage in a little promotion of the article... Adam Cuerden talk 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In 1859, a perceived French threat caused the creation of a volunteer force to protect the home front, and Gilbert signed up. He continued with them until 1878, reaching the rank of Captain.[ref] In 1863, he received a bequest of £300 that he used to quit the civil service and take up a brief career as a barrister, but he was not successful, averaging just five clients a year.[ref]"
To
In 1859, a perceived French threat caused the creation of a volunteer force to protect the home front, and Gilbert signed up. He would continue with them until 1878, and reach the rank of Captain.[ref] Meanwhile, in 1863, he received a bequest of £300 that he used to quit the civil service and take up a brief career as a barrister, but he was not successful, averaging just five clients a year.[ref]
Reasoning: This passage jumps arouund time-wise a little bit, so uuse of appropriate tenses may help clarify. Adam Cuerden talk 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In 1859, Gilbert signed up for the volunteers later reaching the rank of Captain.[ref] In 1863,.... -- Ssilvers 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The plain meaning of the word volunteers is clear enough. I think you are missing the forest here to focus on this unimportant tree. I think the balance of the article would be much improved by shortening this -- 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me now. -- Ssilvers 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is scheduled to appear on the main page in the near future. Here are a few suggestions:
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a little monograph: User:Gadget850/MainPage. I guess it's my way of venting a bit from the other day. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the new edits. We're hoping that getting this article featured will attract some more interest in WP:G&S and get some more editors working on the G&S-related articles. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the changes made over the course of the FA frenzy of 17-19 November, and I agree that a few minor improvements have been made, although I think there is a bit of over-linking (e.g., does the pound sign really need to be wikified? or the word "English" in the phrase "English-speaking"?). I assume that the changes made from "this notation" to 'this notation' are a correct reflection of formal British style. Thanks to those who monitored vandalism during this exercise. Did we meet any new editors for the G&S project? Anyone who is interested, please check out WP:G&S. Added by Ssilvers
Check my revision of the Realm of Joy bit, though. Because there's only so much that Gilbert can tweak the Lord Chamberlain's nose and get away with it, it's claimed their motives towards the other man's wife were compassionate, having found her in tears over her husband's refusal to let her go to the play, though Crowther reads sex it into it - There might be an interesting point there. Adam Cuerden talk 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Are we happy enough with the post-front page version now to update the approved version? I'm inclined to aye. Adam Cuerden talk 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a bit of trivia for you. If my maths is right this was the 1000th article to appear on the main page. Buc 20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Adam that this image is more captivating than the one it replaced. But I don't think either one of them belongs there. That section is primarily about the early collaborations with Sullivan. The image ought to be illustrative of a work that a non-specialist would consider important from that period of his life. (Remember, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from the viewpoint of a non-specialist.) Dan'l Druce is such a minor work that it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.
The relevant question is how well the image relates to the section, not how good a picture it is. I suggest replacing it with an image that the non-specialist reader would find relevant—which most likely means an image illustrative of Thespis or Trial by Jury.
See Dan'l Druce, Blacksmith. Please contribute to upgrade this stub. -- Ssilvers 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the Illustrated London News hated Engaged. Condemned it as immoral, no less. Adam Cuerden talk 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What if we used Image:WSG by Holl.jpg to replace the somewhat boring black and white photograh we use at present? Adam Cuerden talk 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the famous color paintings of G&S are both already in the G&S article. They're great, but I was saying, if I understand Adam correctly, that I like the black and white portraits at the top of each article because they give the project articles a uniform appearance that is carried over in our project icons, etc.... -- Ssilvers 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We've gotten into an edit war with the pronunciation I added, with the other side saying that pronunciations are not used in the G&S project, or that 'Gilbert' is too simple a name to warrant it. This is my reasoning:
kwami ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just been doing a quick bit of research after stumbling across a dubious caption on this image. Our article notes that:
There's a number of things that seem a bit odd here. Firstly, in the 1850s most army commissions were still bought and sold - it would seem odd to speak of him "applying" and "being rejected" when it was a matter of a commercial transaction. Likewise, "only a line commission was available" is a bit odd - the Gordons were themselves a line regiment, so if he'd tried to get a commission from them this is what he'd have been aiming for!
Secondly, we say he joined the Volunteer Army - a middle-class volunteer movement - and served until 1878. The image caption gives the unit as the "Royal Aberdeenshire Highlanders", a unit of militia; this was a different organisation, also voluntary but quasi-professional. He could plausibly have joined either, but it certainly seems plausible he'd have been the sort of person who would get offered a commission in the Militia. The Volunteers trained at evenings and weekends, so people almost invariably joined local organisations; you'd have expected him to join a London unit rather than one in the North of Scotland if this were the case.
It's cited to two books (Stedman (1996), pp. 5–6, 140, and 157; Ainger, pp. 44 and 49) and an online interview. The interview seems to bear out the points above (it says he applied for a commission in the Royal Artillery, who did do public examinations and appointments by merit, so he could have been rejected, and it would make sense for him to consider the option of a line (i.e. infantry) commission after this. It also confirms the Militia point.
However, this is an FA, the line was in there when it got made an FA, and so I'm unwilling to change it outright relying on one online source! Could someone check in those two books to see what it says? Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is the rule. What do you make of it?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
reference 9 to oxford dictionary of national biography links to their 'life of the week' page, which presumably changes regularly, and was not about W S Gilbert when I looked. Sandpiper ( talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on W. S. Gilbert. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on W. S. Gilbert. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOX, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in the articles that you templated because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. In addition throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes, so adding an infobox would degrade the consistency of design throughout these articles. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 3 dead or dubious links. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on W. S. Gilbert. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the footnote specifying that Gilbert is pronounced with a hard G really necessary? I've never once heard of the name Gilbert being pronounced with a soft G. Lizard ( talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
By invitation of Ssilvers, may I explain my addition of the photo of him in Highlander militia uniform which you removed. I thought it would benefit the article by underlining what was said about his service in the text, by illustrating what may to most people today be a least known (and I suspect least photographed) sphere of his public life, also incidentally interesting readers from 'north of the border' (as it was a Scottish regiment). I found the picture relegated to the talk page of another article (about the Volunteer Force) because a user realised it was not technically relevant to that article. It was at the point I had the idea of putting it in this page to bring the picture back into the proverbial light of day, I was unaware of there being an issue about too many illustrations or any cap on illustrations - if my addition took the number over a numerical 'ceiling', then a picture which is not about the man but about his operas (which by now will all have ample dedicated articles) could go in order to make room. Cloptonson ( talk) 20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a 2006 promotion that appears to have been continuously maintained since then. (Hi, SSilvers!) But, significant MOS:SANDWICH has crept it. Please consider removing some images (or otherwise addressing the sandiching), so this article can be marked off of WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Hmm. It does strike me that this article concentrates a bit too much on Sullivan, and not enough about Gilbert. Might it not be better to cover, say, the German Reed operas, Engaged, Charity, Princess Toto, Mountebanks, and such instead of the long diversions into Sullivan's work?
Noticed that too. Will do what I can Adam Cuerden 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
....You know, I just checked. The Mountain sylph has practically NOTHING to do with Iolanthe except that both involve mortals marrying fairies. To claim that Gilbert parodied he plot of it in Iolanthe can only be an urban myth. I'm deleting the reference, and will put in a tracing of L'elisir through Sorcerer and Mountebanks instead. Adam Cuerden 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and the Gilbert and Sullivan article. It would probably be appropriate if material related to the collaboration were on the latter page. This page would focus on Gilbert's background and accomplishments as an individual. Their collaboration would be described only briefly here, making reference to the 'G&S' article where the details would reside. Marc Shepherd 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It's probably worth briefly detailing Gildbert's most famous works, but, aye, some of it ought to go. Will try and push the biography forward through the Clay collaboration and important pre-Trial by Jury playts this weekend, and revise the Gilbert and Sullivan section after that, but...
Weel, if you can do anything, do so =) Adam Cuerden 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the following, for being inaccurate (Gilbert did not begin to have a directorial influence for some time after his marriage - he didn't have sufficient power), as well as not fitting in to the revised, expanded text I'm working on. (I have already removed some editorial bashing of Gilbert by the original author.)
On the upside, starting to get a reasonable perspective on Gilbert's life and works. Downside: Have only revised up to 1869. Ah, well. It'll come in time Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find Gilbert's famous quote about how he allowed himself to be underpaid for Dulcamara, and was told never to give up rights for something that good so cheaply again, and didn't? It'd make a very good reference for the controversy regarding Uncle Baby.
Also, I must admit to a little doubt: I'm reasonably sure it was Terrence Rees who brought Uncle Baby to wider knowledge, but I'm not certain. Anyone know for sure? Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have briefly added a note about Gilbert's work on this, however, that really needs to become a paragraph in its own right, particularly as Sullivan's knighthood had more to do with the Savoy hotel than his musical work, so the bringing up of it is inappropriate anyway. I'm working on it. Adam Cuerden 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have used two quotes under fair use: One from Jessie Bond's autobiography, which is, as far as I can tell, in copyright, and one from Gilbert's story "My Maiden Brief" - out of copyright, but I took said quote from a modern collection. I can get it from a non-copyrighted version if this is needful, but it'd require going to the National Library of Scotland and getting appropriate photocopies. Must I? Adam Cuerden 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article will obviously need a fair bit of cleanup, however, the reworking is still in progress. Since no-one else seems to be working on this, I'll clean up once I'm done. Probably going to need to move the La Viviandre quotes to a seperate article. Burlesques by W.S. Gilbert?
The section on the collaboration with Sullivan says:
I am not aware of any source that the gap in their social status was the cause (or even partly the cause) of their many rifts. Most of their rifts were very specifically caused by Sullivan's objections to Gilbert's libretto ideas. As soon as Gilbert came up with an idea to the composer's liking, the collaboration would resume. The "carpet quarrel," of course, was a fight over contractual issues.
The current edit also says:
I am not aware of any source for the claim that Gilbert was a loner, or that he "did not choose" to socialize with "wealthy and titled" people. Gilbert, in fact, had a quite active social life. He was also married, and hence clearly not a "loner." He and Sullivan had different social spheres, but that could as well be described as a positive choice for certain companions, rather than a negative choice as implied by the statement.
Lastly, the current edit says:
I am not aware of any source for the claim that Sullivan's "vested interest in the status quo" had anything to do with his objections to Gilbert's plots. What Sullivan did object to was the sometimes mechanical nature of Gilbert's librettos, particularly those that depended on supernatural intervention. Marc Shepherd 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline on linking suggests what should not be linked:
It says he was teaching two "young ladies" to swim. I have seen other sources that say "young girls" or "children". Were they adults or children? -- Ssilvers 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the drowning girl? RaqiwasSushi ( talk) 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | Sullivan, too, had a career of his own. Two ballets, a symphony, a cello concerto, and number of large-scale choral pieces, incidental music to five of Shakespeare's plays and, of course, other operatic works, including Ivanhoe, which opened Carte's new Royal English Opera House (now the Palace Theatre) in Cambridge Circus in 1891.
Sullivan was knighted in 1883, not long after the company moved to its new home, the Savoy Theatre. However this knighthood was not for his popular and financially rewarding work with Gilbert, but more for his contributions to musical education and his more 'serious' music. One such work was the musical drama The Martyr of Antioch, first produced late in 1881, for which Gilbert arranged the original epic poem into something suitable for music, and some of the song lyrics in that work are, in fact, Gilbert's original work. Gilbert was not knighted until 1907, in recognition of his contributions to drama. He was, however, the first British writer ever to receive a knighthood for his plays alone — earlier dramatist knights such as Sir William Davenant and Sir John Vanbrugh, were knighted for political and other services. |
” |
This meanders into Sullivan inappropriately.
“ | Gilbert filled his librettos with a strange mixture of cynicism about the world and "topsy-turvydom" in which the social order was turned upside down. These subjects sometimes did not satisfy Sullivan's desire for realism and emotional content. | ” |
This is perfectly acceptable, but misplaced.
I should say, however, that I don't think chronology is working as an organiser. Going to shift this about into more coherent sections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/umgass/files/gasbag227.pdf - Wonderful research by Kevin Wachs, and some very quotable stuff. May be more relevant for The Pirates of Penzance? Adam Cuerden talk 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am deliberatly not commenting in the Peer Review section. As I understand it, this is reserved for people who haven't had a role in editing the article—editors who have no stake in the game.
Nevertheless, these are my views on what needs work in the article.
As a general matter, we must carefully avoid what some editors call the "main article syndrome" — the urge to drop one's favorite factoids into the main article, rather than focusing on main themes. Sideline facts usually belong in subsidiary articles. The purpose of the main article is to provide an overview of the overall subject. Marc Shepherd 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of the big grey box, what if we revised it into a ist with a short description of each piece? Would that be useful? Of course, it'd probably need spun off to another article. Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Cut much of the material moved to Ages Ago as well as the following:
SERGEANT SULPIZIO:
MARIA:
It seemed necessary. Everything needs cited, but it shouldn't be hard to go back and do that hwhen at Uni. Adam Cuerden talk 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
...Er, oops. That should read "the characters from a melodrama brought to life." Adam Cuerden talk 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Revised things a bit. Moved Engaged into proper chronological place, etc. Really needs expansion of the Gilbert and Sullivan years from H.M.S. Pinafore on, the Carpet Quarrel, the interregnum, Utopia and Grand Duke, and later life. Also needs more information on him as a person and a vast expansion of his directoral influence. But at least it's a start. Adam Cuerden talk 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"I hold that there is no such antick fellow as your bombastical hero who doth so earnestly spout forth his folly as to make his hearers believe that he in unconscious of all incongruity; whereas, he who doth so mark, label, and underscore his antick speeches as to show that he is alive to their absurdity seemeth to utter them under protest, and to take part with his audience against himself. |
- Hamlet's speech to the players in Gilbert's burlesque Rosencratz and Guildenstern |
Good quote, but too short of a section to use it at present. HAve added it as a cite. Adam Cuerden talk 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose to add the Fallen Fairies affair next:
Adam Cuerden
talk 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Nancy MacKintosh is more important: Should do her in a block, starting at Utopia Limited. Adam Cuerden talk 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Right. I think the Fallen Fairies stuff goes in the Fallen Fairies article. It should not clutter up the W. S. Gilbert article. -- Ssilvers 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate until the editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan" and resulted in Gilbert sending his correct details back.
This seems to be trying to say something, but I honestly don't know what. Adam Cuerden talk 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, but since that fact isn't ever established, it's hard to follow the logic as written Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that I have redlinked, in the article, the Gilbert plays that I think we need to write up next. Regards, -- Ssilvers 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've ref-tagged some of the in-line references, but note we now have a mix of two sorts of references (web-links and footnotes), which is bad because of two different numbering schemes. I don't think this worth fixing until we have the article ready for GA review: It will only need to be fixed over and over. Adam Cuerden talk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Fix The Importance of Being Earnest article to link to Engaged (play) Adam Cuerden talk 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I've now done all the work on the article that I wish to do. I'll look over anything else that you do, but I think it contains all the basic info I would put in. I still think it could be expanded (or a section consolidated) on what W.S.G. was like as a person and his home life (including his relationship with women in general and something very brief on Nancy). I have a little of this near the end. I also moved the "director" stuff up higher, because he started directing before, or in, 1871, and because it explains something about his process that is helpful in understanding the discussion of the collaboration years -- Ssilvers 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a separate article called List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works. -- Ssilvers 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the Utopia poster really appropriate, or should it be lost, in favour of, say, Gilbert's illustration of Put a Penny in the Slot? Adam Cuerden talk 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why. Looks fine to me. Anyone else have an opinion? -- Ssilvers 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great work on the article, guys. I upgraded it to "A", because I think it's reasonably complete and has a good bibliography. However, unless you want to go through and add a lot of page numbers, I don't think it will get GA or FA from the wikipedians, because it does not have enough in-line references. However, I don't care about that. It is a nice, informative article, and I am frankly happy with it (except that we need to add more of G's most notable plays, as soon as we can get articles up). -- Ssilvers 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The Wolfson reference is pretty much passim, or, at least, big chunks. He keeps making unfavourable comparisons, particularly to His Excellency. Call it 11, 12, 14,61 and 65, if we must be definate - he mainly concentrates on His Excellency for praise, coming between the two main subjects in question. 64-65 is the biggest section.
Adam Cuerden
talk 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arthur William à Beckett - Now this is interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we add Pygmalion and Galatea (1871) to the list of plays? It's reasonably important, it has an article, but is it sufficiently notable? Adam Cuerden talk 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
Additional comments :
Even though the article normally would pass, it will be on hold in order to remove some of the weasel words present throughout the text and to appropriately tag pictures. Lincher 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved some of The Palace of Truth's observations to a sub-article. It was bogging down in details, but no description of the play. Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Jones, John Bush, "W.S. Gilbert's Contributions to Fun, 1865-1874" by John Bush Jones, published in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, vol 73 (April 1969), pp253-266 - I am 99.9% sure this reference deals in full with Gilbert's leaving Fun, but as I do not currently have the article at hand, I am marking it here, just in case it was a different source that I'm mixing up. That said, this is exceedingly unlikely, as I used this source nearly every day for a month or so last year.
Adam Cuerden
talk 22:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
All the requested comments which were little were applied on the article. Wow, this is a throughout great copy-editor. Thanks for being such a fast-paced, well-versed writer. Cheers, Lincher 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've spun Off the Bibliographic section - I've linked to it, not the full list, as I think it's somewhat easier to use, since it has commentary. Adam Cuerden talk 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
But its wrong! It is not referring to his burlesques at all, but to his fairy comedies, and comparing them to burlesque. I think this is misleading. See my change. -- Ssilvers 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it does need to be a little drier. First of all, it needs to say "Selected bibliography...." Second, we can say what the piece concerns, and how the work fits into the context of Gilbert's career. But I think you ought to be rather spare in characterizing each piece, for instance in what the satire means. Let the link speak for itself. Ssilvers
I love to be a pain. Here we go. This is ultra-fussy.
IT SAYS: "...librettist best known for his fourteen operatic collaborations...." This is exactly accurate in describing the subject of this article. -- Ssilvers 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I mark this up as I fix it. - it makes it much easier to see what still needs done. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, I just pressed "Enter" by mistake. Here are a few more.
*"With his work along these lines, Gilbert set the ground for later playwrights such as
George Bernard Shaw and
Oscar Wilde to be able to flourish on the English stage." Ho hum. Assertion without a cite.
O.K, that's enough for just now, more later. Mess around with this all you like, Adam. You might like to strike each complaint as you provide a cite. Cheers, Moreschi 20:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Helpful hint to future citers: I've gone through Crowther's Life of W.S. Gilbert and cited everything I could use it for - an article by a respected, published scholar available online is useful. I think the Gayden Wren one has a few more. I'll do that next.
The first one is Crowther. The second is Stedman 1996, but I don't have the page #. -- Ssilvers 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The one you call "CrowtherLife". ALSO: the WP MOS does not require a reference in the first sentence to prove that Gilbert is a librettist. The entire article makes it abundantly clear that he is a librettist. Clicking on this reference will not add to anyone's understanding of the article. I am removing the ref, but adding it to External links. -- Ssilvers 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
CITATION PROCESS FINISHED (for now)
Adam Cuerden
talk 18 Oct, 2006
Sometimes you have < ref name=JessieBond >, but sometimes you have a different kind of reference to Bond's book. Since you are trying to standardise the refs, you ought to search for bond throughout the code and make the all the same. I note that you are referring to the online version of her memoirs, and we also have them in the References section in book form. Is all this according to the MOS? I am just pointing this out to you. Personally, I don't care much about the ref format. -- Ssilvers 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As some day it may happen that the bronze star must be found
I've got a little list, I've got a little list
Of unreferencèd statements that might well be underground
And that never would be missed...
Another list of stuff-to-cite. Don't rejoice yet Adam, I told you there was more on the way. Right, here we go...
Will cite this up later.
Adam Cuerden
talk 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Huge congratulations to both Adam Cuerden and Ssilvers for their work on this Gesamtkunstwerk. Impressive stuff. Moreschi 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my problem: We are looking up the easisest-to-access sources, not necessarily the best researched, most authoritative ones. The best ones are listed in the Reference list below. So, in fact, this exercise is simply making sure that the online sources get more play than the serious scholarship. That's a shame. Also, if an editor previously wrote something good from a good source, but s/he is not here now to defend that prose, it is getting changed to say something closer to what some online source says, because that is what is easy for Adam to look up. So, even though Crowther's little bio of Gilbert is a very good little bio, ultimately, adding a bunch of refs to Jessie Bond's memoir and Crowther's little bio (instead of his excellent book) is not really helping the reader. Readers who want to know more than what we are telling them in this article should read Stedman's and Crowthers' and a few other excellent books. -- Ssilvers 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That cite looks good, but the formatting is messed up. It needs fixing. Moreschi 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So that's where the kidnapping story comes from (5th paragraph from the end)
Petaholmes edit shows it: The lead for this article cxould use a little more work: The first sentence doesn't flow into what follows. Any ideas as to what should be added, or do you think a rewrite will do? Adam Cuerden talk 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense - moving from the most general to specifics is logical and flows well, and likely fixes all problems. Adam Cuerden talk 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"During this time, Gilbert and Sullivan also collaborated on one other work, the oratorio The Martyr of Antioch, first produced late in 1881."
What about the parlour ballads (Distant Shore, the Love that Loves me Not, Sweethearts)? Need we mention them, or clarify with "one other major work" or something? Adam Cuerden talk 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Gilbert moved to Grim's Dyke in 1890 and, in 1893 was named a Justice of the Peace in Harrow Weald. When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate with the publication. The editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as merely "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan", which resulted in Gilbert sending back his version of the entry
This is Stedman, isn't it? Last significant uncited fact. Adam Cuerden talk 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Justice of the Peace. In addition to lots of others, see:
http://www.lyricoperasandiego.com/Education/PeopleGilbert.htm As to Who's Who, I don't remember where I saw it, and a quick search did not turn it up. It might be Steadman, but I'm not sure. Cut it if you like, although it would be a shame to cut interesting stuff that makes the article better. --
Ssilvers 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate with the publication. The editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as merely "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan", which resulted in Gilbert sending back his version of the entry.
Figured that we might as well get FA whilst we're waiting for it to be checked, so a temporary move seemed pragmatic. Anyway, it was somewhat awkwardly placed. Adam Cuerden talk 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
They seem to be subdivisions of the same place, but Hicks and Terriss say Magistrate at Pinner (Might well be both, or the boundaries may have shifted, etc), but, anyway, I've changed it to Pinner, unless you think it's wrong Adam Cuerden talk 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Try page 281. See [1] She also refers to him as a magistrate, e.g. when discussing "Charity". [2]. CrowtherLife says "In 1893 he had been appointed a local JP, and this occupied part of his time for the rest of his life...." -- Ssilvers 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
We could say "in Middlesex". "In Middlesex" is correct, and it avoids the unimportant point of whether his jurisdiction covered all of Middlesex or just a part of it, and exactly where in Middlesex he "sat" on the bench. If you agree, please go ahead and make the change. -- Ssilvers 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll e-mail Crowther. Stedman's index certainly leaves something to be desired. -- Ssilvers 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good now. -- Ssilvers 17:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thought I'd engage in a little promotion of the article... Adam Cuerden talk 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In 1859, a perceived French threat caused the creation of a volunteer force to protect the home front, and Gilbert signed up. He continued with them until 1878, reaching the rank of Captain.[ref] In 1863, he received a bequest of £300 that he used to quit the civil service and take up a brief career as a barrister, but he was not successful, averaging just five clients a year.[ref]"
To
In 1859, a perceived French threat caused the creation of a volunteer force to protect the home front, and Gilbert signed up. He would continue with them until 1878, and reach the rank of Captain.[ref] Meanwhile, in 1863, he received a bequest of £300 that he used to quit the civil service and take up a brief career as a barrister, but he was not successful, averaging just five clients a year.[ref]
Reasoning: This passage jumps arouund time-wise a little bit, so uuse of appropriate tenses may help clarify. Adam Cuerden talk 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In 1859, Gilbert signed up for the volunteers later reaching the rank of Captain.[ref] In 1863,.... -- Ssilvers 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The plain meaning of the word volunteers is clear enough. I think you are missing the forest here to focus on this unimportant tree. I think the balance of the article would be much improved by shortening this -- 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me now. -- Ssilvers 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is scheduled to appear on the main page in the near future. Here are a few suggestions:
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a little monograph: User:Gadget850/MainPage. I guess it's my way of venting a bit from the other day. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the new edits. We're hoping that getting this article featured will attract some more interest in WP:G&S and get some more editors working on the G&S-related articles. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the changes made over the course of the FA frenzy of 17-19 November, and I agree that a few minor improvements have been made, although I think there is a bit of over-linking (e.g., does the pound sign really need to be wikified? or the word "English" in the phrase "English-speaking"?). I assume that the changes made from "this notation" to 'this notation' are a correct reflection of formal British style. Thanks to those who monitored vandalism during this exercise. Did we meet any new editors for the G&S project? Anyone who is interested, please check out WP:G&S. Added by Ssilvers
Check my revision of the Realm of Joy bit, though. Because there's only so much that Gilbert can tweak the Lord Chamberlain's nose and get away with it, it's claimed their motives towards the other man's wife were compassionate, having found her in tears over her husband's refusal to let her go to the play, though Crowther reads sex it into it - There might be an interesting point there. Adam Cuerden talk 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Are we happy enough with the post-front page version now to update the approved version? I'm inclined to aye. Adam Cuerden talk 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a bit of trivia for you. If my maths is right this was the 1000th article to appear on the main page. Buc 20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Adam that this image is more captivating than the one it replaced. But I don't think either one of them belongs there. That section is primarily about the early collaborations with Sullivan. The image ought to be illustrative of a work that a non-specialist would consider important from that period of his life. (Remember, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from the viewpoint of a non-specialist.) Dan'l Druce is such a minor work that it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.
The relevant question is how well the image relates to the section, not how good a picture it is. I suggest replacing it with an image that the non-specialist reader would find relevant—which most likely means an image illustrative of Thespis or Trial by Jury.
See Dan'l Druce, Blacksmith. Please contribute to upgrade this stub. -- Ssilvers 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the Illustrated London News hated Engaged. Condemned it as immoral, no less. Adam Cuerden talk 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What if we used Image:WSG by Holl.jpg to replace the somewhat boring black and white photograh we use at present? Adam Cuerden talk 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the famous color paintings of G&S are both already in the G&S article. They're great, but I was saying, if I understand Adam correctly, that I like the black and white portraits at the top of each article because they give the project articles a uniform appearance that is carried over in our project icons, etc.... -- Ssilvers 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We've gotten into an edit war with the pronunciation I added, with the other side saying that pronunciations are not used in the G&S project, or that 'Gilbert' is too simple a name to warrant it. This is my reasoning:
kwami ( talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just been doing a quick bit of research after stumbling across a dubious caption on this image. Our article notes that:
There's a number of things that seem a bit odd here. Firstly, in the 1850s most army commissions were still bought and sold - it would seem odd to speak of him "applying" and "being rejected" when it was a matter of a commercial transaction. Likewise, "only a line commission was available" is a bit odd - the Gordons were themselves a line regiment, so if he'd tried to get a commission from them this is what he'd have been aiming for!
Secondly, we say he joined the Volunteer Army - a middle-class volunteer movement - and served until 1878. The image caption gives the unit as the "Royal Aberdeenshire Highlanders", a unit of militia; this was a different organisation, also voluntary but quasi-professional. He could plausibly have joined either, but it certainly seems plausible he'd have been the sort of person who would get offered a commission in the Militia. The Volunteers trained at evenings and weekends, so people almost invariably joined local organisations; you'd have expected him to join a London unit rather than one in the North of Scotland if this were the case.
It's cited to two books (Stedman (1996), pp. 5–6, 140, and 157; Ainger, pp. 44 and 49) and an online interview. The interview seems to bear out the points above (it says he applied for a commission in the Royal Artillery, who did do public examinations and appointments by merit, so he could have been rejected, and it would make sense for him to consider the option of a line (i.e. infantry) commission after this. It also confirms the Militia point.
However, this is an FA, the line was in there when it got made an FA, and so I'm unwilling to change it outright relying on one online source! Could someone check in those two books to see what it says? Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is the rule. What do you make of it?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
reference 9 to oxford dictionary of national biography links to their 'life of the week' page, which presumably changes regularly, and was not about W S Gilbert when I looked. Sandpiper ( talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on W. S. Gilbert. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on W. S. Gilbert. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOX, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in the articles that you templated because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. In addition throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes, so adding an infobox would degrade the consistency of design throughout these articles. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 3 dead or dubious links. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on W. S. Gilbert. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the footnote specifying that Gilbert is pronounced with a hard G really necessary? I've never once heard of the name Gilbert being pronounced with a soft G. Lizard ( talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
By invitation of Ssilvers, may I explain my addition of the photo of him in Highlander militia uniform which you removed. I thought it would benefit the article by underlining what was said about his service in the text, by illustrating what may to most people today be a least known (and I suspect least photographed) sphere of his public life, also incidentally interesting readers from 'north of the border' (as it was a Scottish regiment). I found the picture relegated to the talk page of another article (about the Volunteer Force) because a user realised it was not technically relevant to that article. It was at the point I had the idea of putting it in this page to bring the picture back into the proverbial light of day, I was unaware of there being an issue about too many illustrations or any cap on illustrations - if my addition took the number over a numerical 'ceiling', then a picture which is not about the man but about his operas (which by now will all have ample dedicated articles) could go in order to make room. Cloptonson ( talk) 20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a 2006 promotion that appears to have been continuously maintained since then. (Hi, SSilvers!) But, significant MOS:SANDWICH has crept it. Please consider removing some images (or otherwise addressing the sandiching), so this article can be marked off of WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)