Talk:Thespis (opera)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thespis (opera) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Thespis (opera) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 16, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.
You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Talk Page Archives

Archive 1 - Up to November 6, 2007

Contents 1 Terence Rees again 2 Cast list 3 Libretto discussion 4 Recordings 5 Rees/Morton _______ 6 FA Feature Date

[edit] Terence Rees again

Is he really a Theatre historian? What theatre history works has he published? Maybe he is just a collector who did research on this topic? -- Ssilvers 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the subjects of his two non-Thespis books, Theatre Lighting in the Age of Gas and British Theatrical Patents, establish him as a theatre historian. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But then the description of him in his article ought to reflect this. I'll give it a try right now, so please check to see if you agree with what I write. Are there any appropriate cats to add? -- Ssilvers 15:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that I know nothing about those two other books, aside from their existence. He does have one other significant G&S accomplishment to his credit: he found the original 1887 Ruddigore portraits, which had somehow made their way to the "Entertainment Hall" of a mental institution. Marc Shepherd 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you add a ref to the Rees article with the Ruddigore portraits info, please? I found a few more articles that he had written and have now listed them in his article. Do you know if he still has the Sullivan manuscripts that Ric Wilson listed? (see the link in his article) -- Ssilvers 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. He has periodically sold some things off, and I don't know if Wilson is keeping his site updated. Marc Shepherd 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the site has *not* been updated in many years. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast list

Do you think this section would be better just after the synopsis? Because we do mention cast members fairly frequently, so it might help to have a guide. On the other hand, we also take pains to clearly identify what they did. I could go either way. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Having the list of roles next to the synopsis makes better sense and would also be in accordance with the article structure guidelines at the G&S Project. But we need to discuss this on the FA talk page, because an editor just moved it down. Hey, I just had a thought. Since we keep worrying about what to do with the list of musical numbers, can you embed the names of the songs into the text of the plot synopsis and then put the Notes from it into the musical assessment section? -- Ssilvers 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea: at least half the songs don't actually forward the plot in any way whatsoever, so we'd be having song names next to plot information they don't describe. It would also make it different from every other opera article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libretto discussion

I've tweaked this a bit, but feel free to revert. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you improved it. Marc Shepherd 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings

I've taken the liberty of making this section complete. We have the information to hand, after all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rees/Morton _______

Hmm. I suppose I can see Marc's point with reconstruction - it implies more knowledge than we have. But "version" is slightly off as well, as it's often used when there's only small changes to the original. Is there a better word? Maybe "setting"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In their 2002 paper, Tillett/Spencer use the word "version". I can't think of a better one. "Setting" generally implies a musical treatment only, but Rees/Morton (like many others) fiddle with the libretto too. Marc Shepherd 15:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, then. It's not like it's a terrible problem. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that the word "version" is a broad enough term to cover the situation here. -- Ssilvers 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Feature Date

I suggest asking the Featured Article Director to put Thespis on the main page on December 26, which will be the 136th anniversary of the première. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)