Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Gilbert and Sullivan/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gilbert and Sullivan[edit]

edit | discuss
Gilbert and Sullivan
3 articles
W. S. Gilbert
Arthur Sullivan
Main contributors: Ssilvers , Marc Shepherd, Shoemaker's Holiday ,

Gilbert and Sullivan were almost certainly the most important theatrical collaboration in Victorian England, and this topic will cover the core articles on them: W. S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan, and the summary of their collaboration, Gilbert and Sullivan, thus linking together their detailed biographies with the detailed summary of their collaboration.

W. S. Gilbert is an FA, the others are GAs. Future expansions to the topic might broaden the criteria to include their fourteen operas, two of which are FAs already, or any new satellite articles or lists; however, this forms a coherent group. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. D'Oyly Carte Opera Company. Richard D'Oyly Carte? Savoy opera? rst20xx (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kind of like saying the Solar System FT should be defeatured because not all the moons are GAs. Obviously, this could expand, but I don't think that the exclusion line is arbitrary, as what remains is coherent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan strikes me as something that should be included, at the least, because of its very limited-and-yet-related scope. The other articles rst20xx suggested might not be as strongly related as that one; I'm not sure. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's actually mainly just a lightly polished dumping ground for some trivia sections in the opera articles, that we didn't quite like to delete, but which are pretty crap. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article still exists, so either it needs to be AfD or it exists because it's notable enough. Gary King (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also you're only focusing on one of the four articles I mentioned. Let's take Richard D'Oyly Carte instead. {{Gilbert and Sullivan}} states that Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte form a triumvirate, and yet now you're stating that Carte wasn't important enough to the Gilbert and Sullivan collaboration to need including in this topic. I didn't say that the exclusion line is arbitrary, as you clearly have here in this nom the 3 most important articles to this topic, but I am saying that I think the topic you are proposing doesn't contain enough articles to fully enough cover the scope - rst20xx (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Richard's article is almost GA-level and could be brought to GA level easily, but I don't agree that he's core to the topic. Yes, he was important to the original creation and success of the partnership, but it is the WORKS that survive and make G&S enduringly famous. I'd go with Pinafore, Pirates and Mikado as being core to the topic (and why not throw in Trial, since it's already FA?). How many articles do you usually need to start a Featured Topic? If the three articles named above by Shoe are not enough to start the topic, I'd wait until we get these three operas up to GA level. By then, I'm sure Richard will be GA also. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need a minimum of three articles in a topic, but that's not the problem here. The relevant bit of WP:FT? here is 1(d), i.e. "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic". I am arguing that excluding the articles I named above lead to obvious gaps in the scope of this topic, i.e. the collaboration of Gilbert & Sullivan. If you were to start including plays, then I expect many people would argue you should include all the plays. I didn't really address the issue of whether the topic should include the plays or not in my oppose as I felt that the topic failed the criteria anyway, for the reasons I stated above - rst20xx (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the articles on Richard D'Oyly Carte or his opera company are essential. What is important about them is already in the G&S article. The Savoy Opera article is merely organizational and explains how the G&S operas relate to the lesser-known works produced by Carte, but they are not very important. The cultural references article is totally peripheral to the subject - it certainly never would be part of any core group of our articles, although I think it's a useful presentation of the evidence of how G&S has influenced our culture. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with the nominator on this one the topic is the collaboration between the two and the scope is therefore the three articles. Zginder 2008-12-16T21:15Z (UTC)
    If someone was to propose a topic for a band that just included the band article itself and the band's members, would you support it? rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Gilbert_and_Sullivan/archive2&oldid=1080363814"