Talk:H.M.S. Pinafore

getting Ralph's age right

"According to discographer Marc Shepherd, the [Brent Walker] Pinafore video "is widely considered one of the worst" in the series." It's not merely among the worst, it's downright embarrassing. But the actor playing Ralph is a middle-aged, bearded fellow. Josephine is in love with a man who could be her father! (Elektra, anyone?) The revelation of who Ralph really is no longer an absurdity. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

the one I just watched, directed by Judith de Paul, was pretty bad. The singing was fine, but obviously dubbed over. The Captain did it in burlesque. And Ralph looked just like her father, which made it a little cringy.--142.163.194.7 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H.M.S. Pinafore. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140626112550/http://tolucantimes.info/section/theatre_review/i-caught-two-light-n%E2%80%99-lively-very-funny-productions-last-week/ to http://tolucantimes.info/section/theatre_review/i-caught-two-light-n%E2%80%99-lively-very-funny-productions-last-week

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

Please note that per MOS:PLOTSOURCE no citations are required for the synopsis section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What a very odd thing to do – to put a {refimprove} tag into a Featured Article. Well meant, without doubt, but misguided. Tim riley talk 17:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Per MOSPLOTSOURCE "If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE." Thus, the blanket statement that "no citations" are required is incorrect. This synopsis section includes many direct quotes mixed in with the Wikipedia prose, such as "admiring crowd of sisters, cousins and aunts" "daughter to a tar is partial" "He is an Englishman!" "love levels all ranks ... to a considerable extent, but it does not level them as much as that." I explained this in the edit summary. I do not know why you reverted me with an accusation of edit warring when I was actually abiding by the guideline you were citing. @Tim riley: I'm not sure how it is "misguided" to tag a significant problem on a Wikipedia article for improvement. I would suggest that it is misguided to act as if an FA is perfect and can't possibly bear being tagged for improvement. The little star in the top corner of the page is meaningless unless we actually hold its content to FA standards. Note this is an FA that was promoted over 11 years ago. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I said you were edit warring because that's exactly what you were doing (even if you think you're in the right, just reverting others is edit warring). You need to discuss without re-reverting. Thankfully we are now doing that, rather than just continuing the reversions, which tends to end up with someone blocked, which isn't what anyone wants to happen.

Secondly, the MoS is a flexible guidline, not a blue-lined policy that needs to be obeyed without fail. Now, this article is Featured, which means it has a fairly solid existing consensus for how it should be, as it's been through both a peer review and the FAC process. You're right to say that pages need to stay to current FA standards, but this standard hasn't changed in the intervening years.

I will leave it for others to discuss the substantive point as to whether the addition of citations for the quotes alone is necessary or beneficial, but please see WP:STATUSQUO and leave the article to stand while the discussion progresses. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"the MoS is a flexible guideline, not a blue-lined policy that needs to be obeyed without fail". Why is it ok for you to cite it as a rational for reverting my edit but now you're telling me that its a "flexible" guideline as if now we shouldn't follow it, because I mentioned the rest of the guideline's stipulations regarding direct quotes? Sounds awfully convenient. Either way, if we choose to not leave citations, we have no way to WP:Verify (a policy, not a "flexible" guideline) that anything in the that paragraph actually is representative of the play's plot, particularly the direct quotes.-Indy beetle (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ive said that I will leave it to others to given their rationale, but I'll just corrrect something obviously erroneous: citations are not needed to show the article text is representative of the plot ("The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary" - in other words, the primary source exists to support the plot overall. If you don't like it, tough - or go start an RfC on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction to have the guidance changed). You may want them, but they are not required by guideline or practice. I will let others discuss the matter of the quotations. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree totally with SchroCat on this, citations are not needed to show the article text is representative of the plot Jack1956 (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Indy Beetle, if you look at the FA articles on plays, musicals and operas, you will see that it is customary not to provide citations in the plot summary, because the it is just a summary of the script or libretto. In the case of H.M.S. Pinafore, the libretto is public domain and widely available and very standard across all modern editions, and you can see that the plot summary merely summarizes the main points of the plot. Here is the libretto: https://gsarchive.net/pinafore/pf_lib.pdf -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to have a bee in his bonnet, and nobody will begrudge Indie beetle his, but he would now do us all a favour if he took note of the consensus on this page and let the matter rest. There is not the smallest doubt what the MoS guidance is, nor what the practice of most editors of relevant articles is. As it happens I am one of the minority of editors who prefer to cite page numbers in synopses, but it is not compulsory, and adding the {refimprove} tag was a faux pas. Tim riley talk 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose "the consensus" is to apply the rules when it is convenient to us. The direct quotes remain unsourced, just the opposite of what the guideline says. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is the rule on Wikipedia, as far as it has any rules. Guidelines are just guides, not rules. See Wikipedia:Five_pillars. The point of citations is to allow people to check Wikipedia when corroborative information may be difficult to locate. So we need citations for many little-known facts within the article. However there is no need to cite facts which are commonly known or widely available online because it is easy to check them without citations. The text and plot for all the G & S shows are well known and widely available, so the consensus is that they don't need citations. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, the source for the summary and all quotations is the libretto, reproduced here at the G&S Archive, the Archive's Pinafore home page is the first External Link listed, and the libretto is prominently linked there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

File:W. S. Gilbert - Alice B. Woodward - The Pinafore Picture Book - Frontispiece.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:W. S. Gilbert - Alice B. Woodward - The Pinafore Picture Book - Frontispiece.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 16, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-06-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore is a comic opera in two acts, with music by Arthur Sullivan and a libretto by W. S. Gilbert, first performed in 1878. The Gilbert and Sullivan work was very popular in the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere. It continues to be regularly performed today, and has sparked a number of adaptations. This illustration, depicting a sailor on a ship's rigging, forms the frontispiece to The Pinafore Picture Book, a 1909 children's book by Gilbert and illustrated by Alice B. Woodward. The book retells the story of Pinafore, in some cases giving considerable backstory that is not found in the libretto.

Illustration credit: Alice B. Woodward; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• Bessie Coleman
• Half eagle
• Lichfield Cathedral

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DOyly Carte 1960 - HMS Pinafore 03 - Im called Little Buttercup.ogg
• DOyly Carte 1960 - HMS Pinafore 06 - My gallant crew, good morning.ogg
• DOyly Carte 1960 - HMS Pinafore 11 - When I was a lad.ogg
• DOyly Carte 1960 - HMS Pinafore 19 - The hours creep on apace.ogg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sousa Pinafore

I always hesitate to edit FA articles, but I am surprised that there is no mention of John Philip Sousa's Pinafore arrangement which is probably the best known of the pirated Pinafore productions and which was in wide use in Australia for many years (his arrangement was published). There is an excellent journal article on Sousa's Pinafore if anyone cares to add some content on this into the "Taking Pinafore to the United States" section. See: James Brooks Kuykendall and Elyse Ridder (June 2022). “PIRATING PINAFORE: SOUSA’S 1879 ORCHESTRATION” (PDF). doi:10.1353/not.2022.0040. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Also this 1910 article from The Musician might give some perspective on that production, given that the author singled it out as particularly important. See: Robert Grau (1910). Herbert Wilbur Greene (ed.). "The Story of Pinafore in the United States". The Musician. 15: 622. On a side note, I just created an article on the playwright Louis De Lange who was Sir Joseph in the Sousa Pinafore. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tim riley and User:Adam Cuerden, what do you think about this? I have a very busy day ahead, but I will read the journal article and think about this tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks to 4meter4 for such a scrupulous approach. Would that some other editors were as reluctant to barge in and edit FA texts! As to the suggestion, I can't conscientiously express a view. I've never heard of Sousa's version, but as I'm British that's probably to be expected (though I'm surprised that a pirate version was allowed in Australia). Certainly Sousa himself is notable, and if others feel his pirate version of Pinafore is notable I shall not demur. Tim riley talk 15:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome, Tim riley. I think one could mention it briefly, perhaps through the window of Gilbert and Sullivan actually attending a performance of the Sousa production which is an interesting tidbit. I do think a mention of its wide use in Australia for decades (see the Abstract on page 517) would be warranted. Perhaps some mention of Sousa's orchestration practices, but that may be too esoteric. I will leave it to you two on how detailed to get. I should think a couple of additional sentences should be all that is needed for a brief mention, but there is clearly enough detail in the sources to craft a paragraph if you all wish to go there. I will leave it to your discretion.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting an error in my original comment above, the orchestration was not published (the libretto from the Sousa production with cast bios was published but not the music), although copies of the orchestral parts were sold to the J. C. Williamson Opera Company in Australia; copies of which circulated on that continent. The Sousa orchestral parts are in the collection of the State Library of New South Wales as is an incomplete copy of Sousa’s original score in the Library of Congress. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, and for the excellent journal article. I added a sentence about this to the appropriate part of the article. First, the journal article does not state that this was the most successful pirated version. It did tour extensively, but there were other very successful productions, and this one started off as an amateur production and only seems to have gotten up to snuff around halfway through the tour. The journal article only says that the production was the "best documented" one. Second, the journal article has little nice to say about the orchestrations, comparing them very unfavorably to Sullivans, and stating that Sousa's much later recollection that Sullivan praised them is "dubious". Third, it says that the parts that were later sold to Williamson had seen "considerable use", but it does not compare it to the number of times that Williamson used the authorized parts -- Williamson played Pinafore extensively from 1879 to the 1960s, and I doubt very much that the Sousa parts were used nearly as often as Sullivan's. Fourth, there were 150 U.S. productions of Pinafore, and I think it does not add much to the article to single out individual ones for extensive discussion. So, per WP:BALASP, I think one long-ish sentence is either enough or more than enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of all of that from the journal article. As for the best of the pirated versions, see Robert Grau's article provided above who singled out the production as "by far the best of all the Pinafores" up to that point in time on the American stage (article written in 1910).4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It may have been "the best", but I'm skeptical of that article. For one thing, it calls Sir Joseph "the Admiral", which he isn't, and which shows a basic misunderstanding of the Royal Navy and the relationship between Sir Joseph and Captain Corcoran. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think if you look, you will find other reviews and sources with similar evaluations. Gilbert and Sullivan themselves acknowledged that they would have to hire better singers than what they used in England after seeing this cast. It was very well reviewed.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No doubt, well received and well-sung, agreed. I think the fact that we single it out in the article, along with only the original Boston company, indicates its importance appropriately. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I do think some clarity is warranted though in terms of the tour's significance in the article. Mentioning it played in major American theatres gives a better sense of the tour. Otherwise it seems like a nominal amateur company. One doesn't play the Walnut Street Theatre and the Gaiety Theatre on Broadway typically as an amateur company. These were amateur artists playing successfully in top theatres and reviewed with excellent reviews by the major theatre critics of the day.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinafore productions played at nearly every Broadway theatre and all the major urban theatres up and down the US. Walnut Street Theatre is not more important than the theatres where many, many of the other Pinafores played. This one played at the Broadway Theatre (later called Daly's) and the Park Theatre after Walnut. I don't see any reason to mention them. You can note them in De Lange's article if you think it helps there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That may be, but I still think the modern reader doesn't glean the facts or context of the tour from the current article text which downplays it to the point of being unrecognizable. Without better details, it reads as an inaccurate portrayal in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tim riley, or anyone, can you give us a 3rd opinion on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the 38 words just added suffice on that point, and as to the amateur company, for my own part I shouldn't wish to see it singled out for detailed coverage. Having read the exchanges, above, I'm even more puzzled than I already was about why the Williamson company would want to use the Sousa orchestrations when they had the rights to use Sullivan's. (And you have the wrong paper in the fifth sentence of the relevant para: The Times did not review the production: you mean The New York Times.) – Tim riley talk 08:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)