Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Categories
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
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. (That category is currently a candidate for deletion)
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)
Currently existing categories
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.
This is the category for people who perform, or have performed Gilbert and Sullivan.
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:
- Beverly Sills — clearly a notable person, but the G&S connection is just one sentence of of a long article
- Nancy Dussault — again, her G&S connection is a single sentence
- David Cantor — again, just one sentence
- Robert Cuccioli — again, one sentence
- Dave Ross — three sentences, but all as an amateur
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 signficant 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 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)
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)
Self-explanatory. Note that this does not include operas (see the discussion of Operas by Arthur Sullivan, below).
- There is a proposal to rename this category (see below)
- 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 of the category, "excludes the 23 operas by Sullivan"? Ssilvers 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-explanatory.
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)
This category is for works not by Gilbert and Sullivan, but based on their works.
Category renaming proposals
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)
New category proposals
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
- Operas by Arthur Sullivan
- Works by W. S. Gilbert
- Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan
- Compositions by Arthur Sullivan
- 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 Category:Works by Gilbert and Sullivan as a subcat of Category: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 Category: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 us 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)
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)
Category for performing organisations
The main Gilbert and Sullivan category currently has four entries for what could loosly 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)
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)