Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purpose of this page is to discuss the Wikipedia Gilbert and Sullivan project's policies for categorizing articles. Here, we will propose and reach consensus on:

  • Which categories we should have
  • Criteria for placing articles in those categories

Contents

[edit] Article categories

[–] Gilbert and Sullivan
[+] Compositions by Arthur Sullivan
[+] Gilbert and Sullivan performers
[+] Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan
[+] People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan
[+] Works by W. S. Gilbert
[+] Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan


[edit] Categories with few possible articles

There seems to be consensus in the community that a category should not be created if it has no prospect of generating more than a small handful of articles. For instance, the category Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas would have only one entrant: Major-General's Song. Nor is it likely that very many other G&S songs will ever justify their own Wikipedia articles.

While I think that the category probably isn't large enough to have their own category, its a bit bigger than the Major General's song. For example, Come Friends who Plough the Sea has been turned into Hail Hail the Gang's all Here, and that's certainly "notable" enough to justify an article noting the link. One could also make an argument for other G&S songs that have been reflected in popular culture (such as the Simpsons or the Animaniacs) such as the Captain's Song from Pinafore or Sir Joseph's Song from Pinafore. And, of course, a legitimate category which would include references to G&S (and songs of other composers) would be "patter songs" and the current Wiki article on Patter songs should be linked in and cleaned up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patter_song)Dcraven925 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

Do we need a category called "G&S and popular culture" reflecting the fact that G&S has been reflected in popular culture essentially since Victorian time to today? Very few things from Victorian Times are still referenced as much as G&S. The influences range from Rehnquist's robes to the Muppets to references on TV shows. Again, I am not calling for specific articles as much as an article discussing the interface between popular culture and G&S. Dcraven925 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Several of the opera articles have sections that discuss the cultural impact. For instance, see H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance, and The Mikado. There is also a "Cultural influence" section in the main Gilbert and Sullivan article. I think the relevant material, by and large, would find a home in these places. Marc Shepherd 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currently existing categories

[edit] Category:Gilbert and Sullivan

This is the "umbrella" category. It is also the default category for G&S-related articles that don't have a natural home in any of the subcategories.

[edit] Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performers

This is the category for people who perform, or have performed Gilbert and Sullivan.

[edit] Inclusion criteria?

Should a performer's Gilbert and Sullivan career be particularly "notable" before they are added to this category? Or does it suffice that the person had some documented G&S performing connection, however remote or unimportant?

A few examples that are, in my view, tenuous, include:

My vote is that, in general, we should include only those performers who have devoted a substantial part of a professional career to performing G&S. There are tons of people who performed G&S as an amateur, or that had a brief G&S experience in a career for which they are generally known for entirely different things.

An exception would be someone like J. L. Toole, whose G&S career was relatively unimportant, but he did create a role (namely Thespis). Marc Shepherd 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that if a person in Wikipedia had a significant G&S performing connection, they should be included. The number of sentences in their Wiki bio is, IMO, irrelevant. For instance, Cuccioli performed G&S roles for years with Light Opera of Manhattan. Cantor and Ross have done roles in every G&S show and both are *very* well-known, at least locally, as G&S performers. Also, each considers G&S important to them. Beverly Sills is one of the few "Big Names" in opera to *admit* to a G&S connection--most opera singers leave it off their resumes completely. So, to summarize, I think that to be included, a person should have more than a passing experience with G&S, but it is fine if they became more notable for other reasons. A person who has only done a role or two, and who were not widely seen in G&S productions, should not be included. Therefore, I guess I would take Lynelle Johnson out of the category, even though it is prominent on her Wiki bio, because she really has only done chorus for four seasons with NYGASP. IMO also, there will not be so many people with "significant" G&S performing connections that it will unduly clutter up the category. It is still really a relatively small category. In fact, if you want to highlight the most important people, we could also make a list of just the 20 or 25 "People in history most important to G&S" or something like that. Ssilvers 04:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are a lot of distinctions to be made in the types/levels of people, perhaps a list should be used instead of (or as well as) a category. You could put the most significant in their own section at top, and you could have whatever grouping/ordering you think is best (e.g. years performing, year started, etc...). Also, with a list, you can have useful annotions next to names (e.g. you could say what company they worked for is, what years they were active, which is their most notable role). At a glance, people could find the relevant person, without clicking on every name. The binary fact, of whether somebody is a G&S actor, seems non-useful by itself, and doesn't tell somebody why they'ld want to read the article. Also, with a category, its going to be very hard to police it, because somebody browsing a category, can't quickly see if a name belongs, whereas a (proper) list shows why each person belongs, without a visit to the article. --Rob 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but I think you also need to include people such as Linda Ronstadt, for whom the G&S was a major change. As noted in an article on HER website "With her Broadway debut as Mabel in the Gilbert & Sullivan comic-operetta The Pirates of Penzance, Linda Ronstadt opened a new door in her career." (http://www.ronstadt-linda.com/arthp81.htm) Its clearly set off in most bios of hers as being an important stage in her career. Its an important association in her life.Dcraven925 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan

This category is described as "people who were contemporaries of Gilbert and Sullivan, and worked with them, other than performers."

How about changing this to "People who were or are particularly associated with Gilbert and Sullivan, including their collaborators, other than performers." This would cover people like, e.g., Bridget D'Oyly Carte, impressarios, writers and so forth, who were not their contemporaries. Ssilvers 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have made this edit on the main project page. Marc Shepherd 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Operas by Arthur Sullivan

Self-explanatory.

[edit] Category:Works by W. S. Gilbert

Self-explanatory.

  • There is an ongoing discussion about how to categorize the fourteen Gilbert and Sullivan operas (see below)
Shouldn't we expressly say in the description, "excludes the fourteen Gilbert and Sullivan operas"? Ssilvers 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Works inspired by Gilbert and Sullivan

This category is for works not by Gilbert and Sullivan, but based on their works.

[edit] Category renaming proposals

[edit] Category:Works by Arthur Sullivan to Category:Compositions by Arthur Sullivan

It has been proposed to rename Works by Arthur Sullivan to Compositions by Arthur Sullivan, because the latter is the Wikipedia convention for similar articles. See Category:Compositions by composer.

At this point, it is assumed that this proposal will go forward. Marc Shepherd 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Ssilvers 04:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The rename has been completed. Marc Shepherd 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New category proposals

[edit] Category for the fourteen Gilbert and Sullivan operas

User Paul A noted recently that there was no category for the joint stage works of Gilbert and Sullivan. Since there are fourteen of these, they do seem to meet the criterion for having their own category. (Right now, the fourteen joint works are categorized under Category:Gilbert and Sullivan, meaning there is no single category that contains their joint works — and nothing else.).

Paul A proposed Category:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. Some community members opposed this, because:

  • Gilbert and Sullivan themselves called their works operas, not operettas
  • The dominant label in the "G&S literature" is "operas," with or without an adjective such as "comic" or "Savoy"

As of now, Category:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas is proposed for deletion. Potential alternatives would include:

  • Gilbert and Sullivan operas
  • Savoy Operas
  • Works by Gilbert and Sullivan
  • Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan

I am currently supporting Works by Gilbert and Sullivan, for these reasons:

  • It is neutral on the question of whether their works are operas, operettas, or something else
  • It can accommodate their non-operatic joint works (songs, The Martyr of Antioch), should those works deserve their own articles at some point in the future
  • It conforms to the dominant Wikipedia convention for naming such categories, which are usually of the form <Genre> by <So-and-so>, as in Compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Poems by Rudyard Kipling, and Operas by Giuseppe Verdi. (However, this convention isn't universal; e.g., see Neil Simon plays or Bing Crosby songs.)

Marc Shepherd 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the name. My only problem with this is that the category will almost completely overlap with the category "Operas by Arthur Sullivan". -- Ssilvers 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is a rather significant point that I had overlooked. Probably "Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan" is preferable after all. This would create a category hierarchy of:
Gilbert and Sullivan
Compositions by Arthur Sullivan
Operas by Arthur Sullivan
Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan
Works by W. S. Gilbert
Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan
So, "Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan" would be a sub-cat of both "Operas by Arthur Sullivan" and "Works by W. S. Gilbert", eliminating the overlap that Sam referred to. The Martyr of Antioch is the only non-operatic G&S work that might have its own article eventually, so perhaps it's not worth creating the more general "Works by Gilbert and Sullivan" solely to accommodate this possibility. Marc Shepherd 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That should do the trick. -- Ssilvers 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I will start re-catting the articles. Marc Shepherd 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry not to have seen the change of discussion location. I would still like Cat:Works by Gilbert and Sullivan as a subcat of Cat:Operas by Arthur Sullivan as a compromise acceptable to both sides on the "operetta" issue. I still don't believe that Sorceror and Ivanhoe belong to the same genre; and the eventual prospect of having Gilbert in Cat:Opera librettists with Schikander and Boito strikes me as just odd. Septentrionalis 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Right now, "Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan" is a subcat of "Operas by Arthur Sullivan". Are you saying that "Works" is a better word than "Operas"? The problem with that is that there are at least four G&S works that are not "operas" ("Martyr of Antioch" and three parlour songs). I don't mind, though, if you want to change the name, but would you stick Martyr in the category (once it has its own article), or, if not, where do we put "Martyr"? --Ssilvers 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The folks over at WikiProject Opera settled on the convention "Operas by...." for all composers who wrote any genre of opera (including operetta and comic opera). It was they who created the category Operas by Arthur Sullivan for all of his operatic works, including Ivanhoe, The Sorcerer, and anything in between.
W. S. Gilbert already is categorized in Opera librettists, and has been for quite some time. There is a category called Operetta librettists, but you'll see it's hardly used (4 entrants). My view is that that category is useless, and should be merged with Opera librettists (although this probably is not the place to discuss it).
In a similar vein, the folks over at WikiProject Opera concluded that performers who have specialized in Gilbert & Sullivan should, nevertheless, be categorized as Opera singers, not as Operetta performers (where they had been previously). The rationale, I think, was that it's a very difficult line to draw; all that ends up happening is that lots of articles get "categorized everywhere," to cover all bases. Marc Shepherd 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for theatres

The main Gilbert and Sullivan category currently has five theatres: Gaiety Theatre, London, Royalty Theatre, Opera Comique, Savoy Theatre, and Palace Theatre, London.

I do not see a burning need to create a category at this time, but if we did, it would probably be called Theatres associated with Gilbert and Sullivan. Marc Shepherd 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need to create new categories for things that have only a few items, especially with regard to subjects like this one that are probably only interesting to people who are already well aware of the things that would be included in the category. Ssilvers 04:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for performing organisations

The main Gilbert and Sullivan category currently has four entries for what could loosely be called "performing organisations": American Savoyards, D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, Light Opera of Manhattan, and Fraser Valley Gilbert and Sullivan Society. In my opinion, the Fraser Valley article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. That would leave just three others, and so I do not see a need at this time for a Gilbert and Sullivan performing organisations category. Marc Shepherd 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that articles on local amateur G&S societies are not notable and should not be included. The only exception I can think of might be the Savoy Company of Phila, which is the first American amateur G&S Society and has been performing G&S continuously (except for one or two years) for over a century. I also agree that we do not need a category for three items. They can just go in the main G&S category. I suppose that NYGASP and other professional G&S rep. companies that have some longevity could be added. Ssilvers 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that if NYGASP and LOOM are included, the Light Opera Works (out of Evanston), Lamplighters out of the Bay Area, and the group in Seattle also should be included. Certainly the New York group is the best known (because it is in New York), but the other groups are also pretty prominent. Light Opera Works is reviewed by the Chicago Tribune, hires talent from around the country, and had, as its second Artistic Director Lara Teeter, a nationally known Music theater figure. With regard to "local amateur G&S Societies", most are not notable and should not be included. However, the Savoyaires, again from Evanston, was founded and conducted by Frank Miller, the noted Cellist and Conductor. The associations with Miller (as well as the associations with Phil Kraus) are such that the Savoyaires might be sufficiently important to be included along with Savoy Company of Philly.Dcraven925 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We must draw a line, and the only sensible line to draw is at professional companies. The Seattle group is definitely an amateur company, even though it is a good one. So is Saovyaires. I am not sure about the other two you mention. The prominence of an amateru group's conductor is not good enough. If the conductor is notable and has a Wiki page, it could note that she regularly conducts the group, if that seems important on her page. NYGASP is a fully professional company (Although it does not have a page yet, I imagine it soon will). NYGASP performs dozens of dates per year, in venues as big as 2,500 seats and auditions hundreds and hundreds of singers, most of whom are union members. Everyone is paid, and the pay on their tours is enough to make it worthwhile for the singers. See WP:ORG, WP:MUS and WP:IMP --Ssilvers 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your position. I understand your point, but I think its a bit "New York-centric". Under the definition that you propose, the only metropolitan area large enough to generate such a company would be New York. And that's not a fair reflection of the degree of G&S penetration in the country. The Seattle Group, for example, makes and sells Commercial quality video tapes of their productions and produces works at a higher level than NYGASP. I think that the amateur company is an important part of G&S, and if not individually listed, at a minimum, the strong amateur performing base and the names of these companies should be included in a general article. Dcraven925 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone's writing an article on the importance of amateur groups to G&S. I just don't think we want to go down the road of having an article on each of the 100,000 of them. There are only a small number for fully professional G&S rep groups in the world, so it is easy to have articles for each of them. Even among professional groups, we have already reached a consensus that the group needs to be more than a once a year thing. By the way, your premise above is demonstrably wrong. There is a California professional group and various British groups not based in London. Ssilvers 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To include the California group (assuming its the one I am thinking of) and to not include the Seattle group on the professional/amateur basis seems silly. The Seattle Group's production values are the best in the United States, and perhaps the best in the world (with the exception of the occasional G&S presented by major opera companies such as Lyric or New York City). And most of the various British groups, again, may be professional in the sense that they are paid, but the production values are quesitonable. But more to the point, G&S and its relationship to amateurs is a unique one. And an article on this point is quite important. Dcraven925 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The concern has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the production values of Seattle, or any other groups. The question is whether it is possible to write an article that is neutral, verifiable, based on citable sources that are reliable, and that is not based on original research.
In practice—although I'm sure there are exceptions—it will be difficult to write an article about a local community theatre group that satisfies these requirements. Wherever such articles have appeared on Wikipedia, they have usually complied with none of them. It's not that anyone is trying to be disruptive; it's merely that the kind of information that makes a proper encyclopedia article usually does not exist for these groups. For more on the rationale, see WP:MUSIC. In the exceptional cases, by all means the article should be written. Marc Shepherd 19:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other works by...

Gilbert and Sullivan also wrote in many other genres besides operas. Theoretically, "Songs by...," "Plays by...," "Poems by...," "Overtures by..." could all be categories. I do not believe there are likely to be enough separate articles to justify fragmenting the works so heavily. Works by W. S. Gilbert and Category:Compositions by Arthur Sullivan should suffice. Marc Shepherd 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)