Talk:Pantomime/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

York Theatre Royal

This section looks like advertising to me. Panto is still widely shown all over the UK without any influence from this York production as far as I know. If the article is to talk about particular pantos then I'd have thought the new 'posh panto' productions in London (with famous stage actors) would be worth mentioning. Ben Finn 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what it's saying is that it took a different approach, by not casting celebrities. However as you say hasn't been (to my knowledge either) influenced. Suggest rewording, so it's less of an advert and more a statement that some companies have been successful at taking a non-celebrity approach. Agree that there should be a mention of 'posh pantos' Struds 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Earliest Cinderella 1870?

This Wikipedia article currently states that Cinderella, as a panto production, was "first shown in 1870 in Covent Garden, London". But the "CINDERELLA BIBLIOGRAPHY" by Russell A. Peck (available online from the University of Rochester library), under the heading "CINDERELLA PANTOMIME PRODUCTIONS", lists the first as being at London's Drury Lane Theatre in 1804. It's clear that he's writing about the pantomime genre properly speaking, not things that are really something else (like operas, for example). Here I quote him:

"[The first Cinderella Pantomime in England was the 1804 production at Drury Lane, dir. Mr. Byrne. See Cinderella Pantomime Scripts above for cast, synopsis, and details of the production. Most of the published scripts include casts of the first production of the particular text. I have not repeated such information here, though most published scripts reflect at least one initial production. This section of the bibliography includes performances whose scripts have not been published or are unknown to me. The information is taken mainly from theatre programs, newspaper reviews (especially from On Stage), and Alvin Marill's More Theatre: Stage to Screen to Television, cited above under The Pantomime Genre.]"

According to Peck, the music for this 1804 pantomime production was by Michael Kelly (1762-1826).

Peck's account of early panto Cinderella productions goes on to list New York (March 1808), New York again (August 1808), Philadelphia (1824), and Baltimore (1839). Should we change the article to reflect this source material?

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/CAMELOT/cinder/cin8.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandArtLover (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely.--woggly 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign! MdArtLover 10:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Peck lists as panto an 1839 piece by Michael Rophino Lacy called "Cinderella, or the Fairy-Queen and the Glass Slipper. A Comic Opera, In Three Acts. The Music by Rossini." This would appear to be a contradiction - if it's an opera, how can it be panto? But apparently Lacy cribbed music freely from various pre-existing Rossini operas and made a "pantomime opera" out of it: "Lacy's adaptation of Rossini became one of the most frequently reproduced of the pantomime operas, often used in the 19th century by British acting troups in America as well." [1]. I don't have time at the moment to integrate this info properly with the article while not messing up its structure. I offer this information for anyone else to use in revising the article as they may see fit. MdArtLover 11:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Russell A. Peck is the John Hall Deane Professor of English at the University of Rochester. MdArtLover 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, page not moved. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I see there's been some history with this article being moved quite often, but the current situation vis a vis Wikis in other languages is highly misleading. In many if not most languages, including American English, the word "Pantomime" refers to "mime" - not to the British Panto genre. This is what translators refer to as "false friends": words in different languages that look the same, but mean something different. Unfortunately, most of the interwiki links (which I have just removed, not for the first time) have linked to articles discussing mime. Few of the other language Wikis even have articles for the British pantomime! What happens is that the Wiki robots keep adding the wrong links, over and over, linking the English "pantomime" to "pantomime" in other languages, though in fact they are not at all the same. I also find it astonishing that there is no article for mime on the English Wikipedia: only for mime artist. Mime is such an important art form, and unlike the British Pantomime, shared by so many different cultures!

What I propose is as follows:

• That mime artist be moved to mime, and hopefully expanded to reflect other cultures
• That the article currently at pantomime be moved back to British Pantomime, and pantomime reinstated as a disambiguation page instead of pantomime (disambiguation), leading off to British Pantomime as well as to mime.

--woggly 11:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Since the Augustan pantomime is no closer to the British art form than to mime, it should probably be a third article. Accordingly, I have taken out the sentences on it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't rename pages because they may be ambiguous in other languages, this is the English Wikipedia; if a bot or an editor has added the wrong interwiki links, then they should be more careful about the page they're editing. This current page location is the most well-known use of the word in the English-speaking world, there's no reason to change that. Crazysuit 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Or in other words, what you're saying is, "the article as it currently stands reflects my use of the word 'pantomime', and if it causes other people confusion or misunderstandings, I don't see why I should care". Asides from those silly furriners, there are a lot of Americans who are unfamiliar with British Pantomime and for whom the word pantomime means mime - that's probably how it ended up on List of words having different meanings in British and American English. I'm open to hearing why the proposed new location might create new problems, but opposing a move on the basis of a flat denial that the current location is problematic strikes me as closeminded. --woggly 08:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a case for WP:ENGVAR; there is a real possibility of confusion, and there is no evidence that this usage is the primary one. For another example of such a rearrangment, see what happened at Athletics. Our naming conventions are not set up to mandate confusion, but rather, to prefer the simplest title that doesn't conflict with other meanings of the title in question. Dekimasuよ! 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Crazysuit writes: "This current page location is the most well-known use of the word in the English-speaking world". Well, it's not the main usage in the US, which has a lot more English speakers than Britain, Canada, and Australia combined. But I'm not sure what to do about this, frankly. MdArtLover 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New name suggestions

The suggested new name British Pantomime is somewhat unclear (and should be British pantomime).
Try Pantomime (by British English definition)? Anthony Appleyard 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge request: The British Pantomime→ Pantomime...

Yes, merge The British Pantomime into this article posthaste. It’s not only British but common to most English-speaking countries except the USA. And put a general definition of pantomime in the first paragraph so the Americans won’t get confused. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to read that it is considered common to English speaking countries. As an Australian, the first time I heard of Panto was when I moved to the UK, and I checked it out on Wikipedia, and saw the entry that it is common in Australia. I asked quite a few Australian friends if they knew what Pantomime was. Most thought either knew it as some 'English play' or thought it was a synonym for mime. Murphydog1 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge. Both good pieces but no obvious purpose is served by keeping them separate. Tim riley 13:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge.

To avoid confusion, how about renaming the pantomime page to "Panto" (this word is never used by Americans to mean mime) and give a proper description at the top of the Panto page along with a link to a mime page.

British Pantomime + Pantomime -> Panto

The Pantomíme disambiguation page could then look something like this:

Pantomime: Panto, a musical comedy play usually performed around Christmastime (GB, IRL, ...) Mime, a theatrical performace without speaking Pantomime (album), debut album of Japanese rock band: the pillows; or a same named song in that album

• merge and add to this page so it takes a boarder world view, pantomime does mean mime (from the greek meaning 'all mime' or 'imitate' according to the conpendium companion to twentieth century theatre.) And is used as such in countries such as the usa, france and others. Also according to the book i mentioned earlier "in the caribbean, Jamaican pantomime developed its own form quite distinct from its British source" though that's all it says on the subject. Struds 20:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm astonished to find that this is a disambiguation page. Surely 99.9% of those who look up "pantomime" will expect to find the article that is presently under "pantomime (theatre)", and therefore we should have the disambiguation page at "pantomime (disambiguation)". Deb 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PANTOMIME: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This pan·to·mime /ˈpæntəˌmaɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pan-tuh-mahym] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -mimed, -mim·ing. –noun 1. the art or technique of conveying emotions, actions, feelings, etc., by gestures without speech. 2. a play or entertainment in which the performers express themselves mutely by gestures, often to the accompaniment of music. 3. significant gesture without speech. 4. an actor in dumb show, as in ancient Rome. 5. Also called Christmas pantomime. a form of theatrical spectacle common in England during the Christmas season, generally adapted from a fairy tale and including stock character types who perform songs and dances, tell jokes, etc. –verb (used with object) 6. to represent or express in pantomime. –verb (used without object) 7. to express oneself in pantomime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.251.148 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, really (though I'm not necessarily agreeing with Deb). The question is not what most English speakers will think of when they hear the word "pantomime", it's what most people who look the word up in an encyclopedia are looking for. Senses 1, 2, 3, and 4 are called "mime" in England; are they called "mime" in the US? Is it synonymous, and is it more common? If so, you can see that that would be a case where people wanting to look up the idea would go to Mime and not Pantomime, even if they would understand "pantomime" to mean "without speech". Marnanel (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for more pantomime information

Under the section heading "Pantomime traditions and conventions," the article states that pantomime is "traditionally performed at Christmas, with family audiences consisting mainly of children and parents." But this doesn't explain who the performers are and who sponsors the project. Are pantos put on by organizations such as schools, church groups, or community theatre groups? Those of us who don't have exposure to English pantomime wouldn't know this information. Thanks. BellyOption 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's who puts them on. As do professional theatre companies. Just about anybody theatrical really. Unless they are really high-brow. They're a money-spinner. -- 68.147.195.106 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconding the request for better overview of typical show

I'm guessing based on the article that a pantomime is a full-length comedy play with one or two musical numbers and a very specific set of conventions (lead boy, dame, etc.). But it's still a little hazy for this American. Details like typical length of show, authorship of scripts (public domain? are new ones commissioned?), and what's the tie-in to Christmas and New Years would help the uninitiated figure this out. Would you ever see a 'mime' (Marcel Marceau), or a magic act or juggler in a pantomime? Or is it basically a form of musical comedy with a continuous plot built on specific cliches? Are there professional/expensive pantomimes and amateur/cheap ones? Is it something you'd see in London/a big city, or only in the sticks? Neil H.

Answers... Typically a 2 hour show in two acts. Anybody can write a script (although they are generally but not invariably based on the standard subjects listed in the article) and new versions come out every year. Only tie in to Xmas/New Year is that it happens at that time of year to take advantage of the general merrymaking that goes on then. You wouldn't see a mime, magic act or juggling unless they had been written in for a laugh or to suit a celebrity appearing in that panto. It's a comic play with music and lots of audience involvement, built on stock plots and character types but it would be going too far to say that it uses cliched plots and characters -- bad pantos might, good ones don't. It's a bit like saying that My Fair Lady was built on the Pygmalion and Galatea cliche: sort of true but missing the point. Yes, there are expensive professional and cheap amateur ones (not to mention cheap professional and expensive amateur ones). You'll see them in London, big cities, small cities, big towns, small towns, big villages, small villages and in the sticks because they are very popular in both meanings of the word. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pantomime in India

This subsection, "Pantomime in India" should be moved to the article on "mime" which already makes some reference to mime in classical Indian dance-theatre, and where it more properly belongs.IanThal (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. the section 'pantomime outside the UK' means 'productions of pantomime (in the British sense, which is the exclusive subject of the article) occurring outside the UK.' MdArtLover (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adverts

Please do not add adverts to wikipedia. Telling people about a forthcoming production is important. Getting the correct group for your ad is important. A Global wiki is not really the right forum. And besides they ruin an article. If you are keen on panto then improve this article... don't fly post it. Victuallers 13:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a follow on from this - what's this link to "Pantomime in Ukraine"??? Rob Burbidge (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Any reason why this article doesn't actually have a definition of Pantomime beyond "a genre of theatre" in the introductory paragraph (per Wikipedia policy?) --189.148.30.150 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Layout#First paragraph - "Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows.". This does not ask us to have a have a definition of the word. The goal of Wikipedia is to be like an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Still, if you feel you can improve the first paragraph you are welcome to try.R00m c (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki problem

There is a problem with the interwikis of this page. Every other's language cognate refers to the kind of performance done by mimes, but any attempt to manually correct the interwikis (from here or the other languages' pages) is blindly undone by the bots.

Is there any way to fix this? Some directive that will tell bots not to change the interwikis, or something like that? --Angus (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Use {{bots|deny=...,...,...}} (replace the '...' with the names of the interwiki bots) Also, go to all of the other wiki pantomime pages and remove the english wiki page if it is not the correct one.

link the other wikis to Mime artist I'll do it partly.

Finished, except cy:Pantomeimeo:Pantomimolt:Pantomimapl:Pantomimafi:Pantomiimisv:Pantomim (cant tell what they are). If there is any progress, please add tit to simple:, too, or else the problem will come back.ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 09:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edward Blanchard

We already mention the Drury Lane theatre's role in the development of "modern" panto. However it might be worth mentioning E L Blanchard's role in the development of the modern form of panto scripts at Drury Lane. It would bear some discussion. See http://www.its-behind-you.com/drurylanepantos.html for more info. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pantomime Roles

Does anyone know of any other panto roles which could be added to the table as I only know of four roles, if anyone knows anymore feel free to add them. Paul2387 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me what role people such as Prince Charming from Cinderella and Alderman Fitzwarren from Dick Whittington are considered to be, as I am unsure on this role. Plus if anyone knows of any other roles that are missing from the table on the article, feel free to let me know either here or on my talk page. Thanks Paul2387 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Australian Pantomime

Will the "panto sceptic" apparently unable to accept that ANYTHING has changed in the last fifty years, and that Australia (before television) once had a thriving "pantomime culture" please stop trying to wipe a much beloved memory of my childhood out of this article? Some things are such common knowledge that they don't really need references. Sadly pantos (and live theatre in general) are much less common these days than they once were but...--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on "Canada" and "Villain"

The part about Canada is way too long and ought to be cut down. Just name the places where pantos are performed in Canada without going into such detail.

In the table, it is not correct to say that the villain is played by a man, I think, as it is often a woman. Evil stepmother, evil queen, wicked witch etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.53.32 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a link to the U.S. "melodrama" might help here. The type of work described, with a villain, an expectation of stylized comic by=play with asides, etc., is very similar to/might be the same as the 1890s form of vaudevillian performance drama known in the U.S. as "melodrama." I've added a sentence to that effect. Best--Dellaroux (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to melodrama

I think a link to the U.S. "melodrama" might help here. The type of work described, with a villain, an expectation of stylized comic by=play with asides, etc., is very similar to/might be the same as the 1890s form of vaudevillian performance drama known in the U.S. as "melodrama." I've added a sentence to that effect. Best--Dellaroux (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a lovely thought - sadly I just don't think it is right. Melodrama is NOT a specifically American form at all - although it is possible it persisted a little longer in America than in England, where it was for a while very popular indeed. Gilbert and Sullivan make fun of melodramatic conventions in several of their operettas - especially Ruddigore - while Thespis, their very first work, has several panto features. A good many of the "stagey" conventions that have become fossilised in panto were in fact common in the 19th century - and can be found to a greater or lesser extent in most "popular theatre" of the period. I think if you'd had the chance to attend performances of melodrama and panto you'd be aware of certain fundamental differences. In the meantime, the section you added to this article is speculation, and, sadly, doesn't belong here. See if you can get some references - and concentrate more on the specific things that the various 19th century popular theatrical forms have in common and you may end up with a very worthwhile addition to the article! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Allusions?

Anybody want to put up a section of allusions in various "straight" literature and entertainment? I can think of the pantomime horses in a Monty Python episode, but there are probably more that I can't understand. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be interesting and valid. Another example is the comic character "Dame Edna" created and acted by Barry Humphries. Here's an excerpt from an interview with his authorized biographer and self-described "Humphriesologist", David Martin Bruson [2]:

MTR [interviewer]: "You've referred to Dame Edna as a 'pantomime dame.' What is that?"

DMB [David Martin Bruson; friend and authorized online biographer of Barry Humphries (Dame Edna)]: "The pantomime dame comes out of the British music hall (burlesque) tradition. The dame was usually a stocky man playing a woman of a certain age. The joke of the pantomime dame is the hefty man in women's clothing. Do you remember Gene Wilder's movie Haunted Honeymoon? The Dom DeLuise character is a kind of pantomime dame. If you notice, almost the entire cast was British.

"Dame Edna is not really a pantomime dame. She is a female character played seriously by a man - as in character acting. The music hall tradition resonates because it made the idea of a man dressing up as a woman a matter of comic invention and not a perversion as it is so often thought of here in the States." MdArtLover (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the most mainstream, reference to pantomime within a non British context, would have been Johnny Depp's acting style within the Pirates of the Caribbean series, which to any British viewer is obviously of panto style. See [3] for one of numerous references to Jack Sparrow and Pantomime, that can be found instantly using a search engine.217.171.129.72 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another example of pantomime in film, would be Brian's mother in The Life of Brian. It's classic pantomime dame, a middle aged man in drag, melodramatic, and even does the "Oh no he isn't" schtick with the crowd when she's at the window/ Cankerman (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent gutting of the page?

Why has this WP page been gutted? The justification the editor used, over and over, was "no tradition of panto; just a bunch of ex-pats doing panto"; however, that is part of the tradition. Panto has been spread around the world, and in many places has become a fixture of the Christmas season; e.g., Canada.

Am I the only WP contributor who is disturbed by the recent changes to this WP entry?

My vote is to restore the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crath (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - the spread of panto is part of starting the tradition outside the UK, which seems to be drifting away with the antics of the TV personalities. Some of the non-UK pantos have established a local tradition going back many years and my experience is that the locals become involved too (not just the ex-pats). (OK, little gems, like a one-off panto in Mogadishu or Tim Berners Lee playing Dame, might be out of place in a learned article.) DaPi (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Other meanings apart from panto

Within the following talk contrib, User:72.38.160.184 changed "is" to "he" (and thus

oh yes is his! oh no he isn't!

to read

oh yes he his! oh no he isn't!

(emphasis added), within this contribution by a non-signing user, without explicit mention.
Likewise, at 02:01, 17 May 2006 User:Bookgrrl converted the bare link mime into a link to mime artist, piped under "mime", without explicit mention.
I have restored that first contributor's version in both respects.^{--Jerzy•t 07:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)}
The first part of this article should be at the end IMO. Who calls mime pantomime? Perhaps it's because i'm from the UK but pantomime only meants "oh yes is his! oh no he isn't!" type theatre. I think that this should go at the top of the article (and be greatly expanded) and other meanings of the word should go at the bottom as an afterthought. Or perhaps a disambiguation link this article is about comical childrens traditional theatre in the UK. For other meanings of pantomime see mime or some such thing. Thoughts anyone?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 December 2004‎

• I agree. This shouldnt confuse mime and pantomime.
  --Joshtek 00:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pantomimes is not the same as a mime
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.161.159 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2005‎

• I've reformatted (to a less confusing indentation style) the following contrib (whose repetition of the whole of the preceding comment within the section must have been an exigency imposed by the contributor's misplacement of their comment above what they were commenting on); that original formatting (and positioning) may be seen via this diff.^{--Jerzy•t 06:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)}
  pantomimes is not the same as a mime
  Maybe to you it isn't. Have you ever wondered what these words really mean and where they come from? I am very dissapointed to see that the greek word "pantomima" (and "pantomimos") is not acknoledges anywhere in this text!! I can see that over the years the word has aquired a separate meaning in the UK and some other countries. In Greece, the word "pantomime" (and Greek is where the word originates from) is "a story told without words through gestures and movements". Wikepedia should at least include all definitions of the word!
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.48.26 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2007

• Yes, we should have primary disambiguation here. Haukur 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• "Perhaps it's because i'm from the UK..." you say. Yes, in fact, it is because you're from the UK. In the US "pantomime" means mime and mime only. See List of words having different meanings in British and American English. -Stellmach 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "In the US "pantomime" means mime and mime only." By the dictionary, maybe so; but most Americans simply do not know the word pantomime. If they want to talk about mime they use the word 'mime' same as they do in Britain. I would go so far as to say most Americans who know the word pantomime are Anglophiles who know it to have the British meaning. Dyaimz 13:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• From the above debate, its pretty simple to conclude that (according to which state you come from) mime and pantomime can mean the same thing - please! Looking up the meaning in Marion Webster, the difference between Mime and Pantomime is music - both have a comedic element. In the wider context (we may use American English, but Wiki addresses an international audience) mime is mime, and pantomime is a uniquely Anglophile comedy, which according to M-W online is: "a British theatrical entertainment of the Christmas season based on a nursery tale and featuring topical songs, tableaux, and dances". Rgds, - Trident13 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• The following contribution's initial placement (above that of the 24th) appears to indicate comment only on the discussion thru 2nd September, and thus inapplicability to the most recent (24 September) previous contrib.
  I complete disagee with the above. The word "pantomime" is well known in the U.S. In fact I came to this page looking for an article on pantomime in the American sense. I was unaware that the Brits used the word differently. I also think that pantomime and mime are generally used in slightly different context here in the U.S. Generally when Americans refer to mime they are refering specifically to white faced street performers where as pantomime is often used in a more general sense.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.244.90 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2006‎

Is that really the only definition M-W gives? The dictionary's quoted at dictionary.com list all sorts of meanings.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.244.90 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2007‎

In America, mime artists and other theatre professionals generally do distinguish between mime and pantomime, although, since there is not as much of a pantomime tradition in the US, "pantomime" is often also used as a synonym for "dumbshow", but even with this usage "pantomime" is something very different than work inspired by Decroux, Marceau, LeCoq, and Tomaszewski. The confused terminology is the usage of non-theatre professionals.IanThal 00:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

...and fix this talk page situation

This section's heading was added 02:40, 24 October 2006 by User:AjaxSmack, in an edit that added entries to the preceding section but no content to this section.
--Jerzy•t 07:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rescue attempt (major edit)

The article was starting to fall to pieces, largely as the result of well meaning (i.e. good faith) edits that were not up to "encyclopedia" standard, or were repetitious, poorly written - or even childish.

To summarise what I have excised or modified:

• A large block of text had somehow got itself inserted into the "history" section that was frequently inappropriate in tone, not to mention being full of plain silliness (comparing, for instance the adaptations made to pantomime stories to Disney style perversions). Mainly – it seemed to need integrating with the following section (the “distinctly English entertainment” bit) – drastically cut to eliminate repetition of fact, and a complete overhaul of the language (FAR too non-academic and slangy). I have cut the Gordian knot here and simply excised the whole thing – although some of the facts (like the changes in laws relating to theatrical licensing) may be candidates for re-insertion, in the proper place.

• Someone had started to reinsert mention of particular “panto stories”. Before we knew where we were we would very quickly have been back in the old situation of listing dozens of these – with every second person viewing the article (OK I am exaggerating a bit, but...) adding a few new ones. The point needs to be made that in practice the number of frequently performed panto stories is quite small. Peter Pan and Snow White are reasonable additions, perhaps, but we really do need to stop there.

• Having children from the audience on stage to join in the singing is a lovely idea, and well within the “audience participation” tradition – but there are obvious logistic difficulties, and it is not in itself a “traditional” feature.

• Listing particular American Panto companies is outside the parameters we have set ourselves here – just a mention that they do exist? There is a specific article for American Panto – could they go there? Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Article name and interwikis

In most languages, pantomime means mime, therefore most of the interwikies are wrong in this article. Maybe we should rename it as English pantomime which is a wide used term for this form. And we should rename the main article just mime and move interwikies.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This was supposed to have been fixed a long time ago! Was this in effect never done, or have some inappropriate links crept back in? please DON'T rename the article just because an English word is not the same as its equivalent in other languages - that way lies nothing but confusion: thousands of words fall into this category (and in every language of course, not just English). What my French teacher used to call "false friends" (French words that look like English words but mean something quite different). The fact is that anyone linking articles in different languages needs to be constantly aware that an article in one language will quite often NOT correspond to the word most like the name of the article in another - one cannot get by for very long without comparing the actual content of the articles concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

18th Century Pantomime in New York Fraunces Tavern 54 Pearl Street

...Search David George DeLancey - Go to Google+ find Fraunces TavernDavid George DeLancey (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Article currently reads " παντόμιμος is made up of παντός (pantos, genitive of πᾶς, pas), meaning all...", citing Liddell and Scott. But Liddell and Scott (which I agree is the standard dictionary of Ancient Greek) does not say that the παντό- element is from the genitive of πᾶς (a theory which appears to be original research). All it says is that it is composed of the elements παντό- and μιμος. The OED (which gives a more complete etymology for the word 'pantomime' in both English and Greek than L&S does) is explicit that the element παντό- is a combining form based on the stem, which of course is also used to make the inflected forms (including the genitive). --Macrakis (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The OED is a subscription only site, so I can't see it (although I have the compact version at home), but the L&S page for πᾶς says "...gen. παντός". But I don't see an L&S entry for παντός, and I must admit that this is all Greek to me. I would be grateful if you can help simplify this, but I was afraid that you were losing something with your edit. Can you show us where L&S says that παντόμιμος is composed of the elements παντό and μιμος, and what παντό means? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The L&S at Perseus reads:

παντό-μι_μος , ον,

A.pantomimic, “ὀρχηστής” Jul.Mis.351d; ὄρχησις Suid.s.h.v.: Subst. π., ὁ, pantomimic actor, Luc.Salt.67.

The "-" after παντό- in the headword indicates a compound; the "_" after the ι indicates a long vowel. If you really need a more explicit statement of this, try Smyth, Greek Grammar, p. 248, at Google Books ¶874. --Macrakis (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I restored a citation request that you inadvertently deleted. I also made some minor tweaks per WP:JARGON for clarity and to merely fill out your shorthand to full sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the {{cn}}.

I don't think it's necessary to say "The word 'X' comes from the word 'Y'" any more than it is necessary to say "the man named John is the father of the man named Peter"; the quotation marks tell the reader that we are talking about the word and not the thing.

The compact style of gloss is pretty standard. I find that, e.g., "Greek ἵππος hippos 'horse'" is easier to read than the busy "the Greek word ἵππος (hippos), meaning 'horse'". See for example, p. xix "Phonetic Symbols and Conventions" in Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (text available at Amazon). One could argue that this is a "technical" convention, but we generally use technical conventions for technical statements; along the same lines, we don't say "the number one plus the number one equals the number two", but expect the reader to understand the technical version 1+1=2. --Macrakis (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be standard among lexicographers, linguists and such, but this is a general interest encyclopedia, and people interested in Pantomime need to understand what you are talking about. We certainly do not want to use technical conventions. Please see WP:JARGON, which says exactly the opposite. The subtle punctuation signals that you seem used to seeing will not be clear to someone who wants to know what a "pantomime" is like. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that WP is for the general reader. However, we do use technical conventions all the time. We use subtle punctuation like brackets for numbered footnotes[23] and parentheses for Harvard-style references (Jones, p. 23). We use quotation marks, italics, boldface, colons, and parentheses to cite an article as

Peter Jones, "Macbeth's ambition", Theatre Studies 23:5:45 (May 2003)

instead of

the article entitled "Macbeth's ambition", written by Peter Jones, and published on page forty-five of issue five of volume twenty-three of the journal called Theatre Studies in the month of May of the year two thousand three of the Christian era

I trust you agree that the first version is crisp, complete, and concise, and the second is pedantic, pleonastic, and palaverous (love those alliterative hendiatrises). The question isn't whether we should use technical conventions, but which ones we think are suitable for the general reader. Apparently we disagree on where to draw the line...!

Re "παντο- (panto-) meaning "all"" -- why stop there? What does the subtle punctuation "(panto-)" mean? Well, to be completely explicit, it means "transliterated into Latin characters as "panto-", where the final hyphen indicates that it is a combining form, not an independent word". At least we agree that that is too wordy! --Macrakis (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

mild sexual innuendo?

Is it mild when an actress polks a man's head in her crotch? Is it mild when someone not only sticks a telescope down his trousers and comments on a tiny sea monster but then when pulling it out makes it clear it's stuck to his dick? Physically mimicking sexual intercourse? What I saw last night in a major production wasn't mild sexual innuendo. Or to put it another way, any child going to school the next day and mimicking some of the the words or actions they saw at the pantomime is likely to be in serious trouble. But outside of the Daily Mail I can't seem to find any sources that comment on this. The point isn't whether the child will understand it all (and we may be underestimating modern children), it's whether they think what they see is acceptable behaviour - and since their parents probably took them... Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is well beyond "mild", and does not sound like good family entertainment, but we must consider two things: First, what we need to describe in the encyclopedia article is what is *typical* of pantomime today (I hope that what you saw went beyond what is customary), and what was typical in the various historical periods that we are describing in this article. Second, we should only describe what we can reference with reliable sources. Parts of this article are not well-referenced, unfortunately. If you can find a source (Daily Mail or any major newspaper is ok) that says something like "nowadays, pantomime is full of dick jokes and crotch licking" or just "this was typical of pantomime today", then we can cite it and remove the word mild. I think that "mild" has been a fair characterisation for most pantomime, but if what you are describing has become so common, critics must have commented on it. BTW, I am curious which production did you see? Did you speak to any parents in the audience? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Online source

I stumbled across a good online source that may help us reference some of the unreferenced information in the article. See Taylor Millie, British Pantomime Performance, Intellect Books, 2007 - Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I feel like the intro blurb needs to more clearly lay out the distinction between pantomime and other forms of theater/entertainment. I think this is the single piece of information that most visitors to this page are looking for, and they ought not to have to search around through history etc. for it. If someone who knows more about the subject than me could edit this in, that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.194.128 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Performance Conventions

'The good fairy always enters from right side of the stage (from the audience's viewpoint) ..' Is this correct? I've seen the fairy enter from the left hand side of the stage as viewed by the audience. --Flexdream (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Very possible - all these conventions are "flexible" (as the text makes clear) - directors don't necessarilly sit down with the list and work through it ! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually - thanks for bringing this up! "Stage right" is of course "right" from the actors' point of view!! - and thus left to the audience. I've done enough stage work not to have to look this up, but I have looked it up anyway. I've also reworded this section a bit to make it clearer. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to know that my local panto is still observing the tradition for the fairy and the villain - something I'd never noticed before. Thanks --Flexdream (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice observation! I hadn't really noticed it before, but went to the panto last week and, sure enough, the good fairy always came on from stage right and the villain (boo! hiss!) always from stage left... Oh yes, they did! -- Picapica (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

'Not to be confused with'

It is not necessary for the clarification that pantomime is not mime to be part of the opening sentence. It reads awkwardly and I can see no consensus for it to be there. General practice on Wikipedia in this matter appears to be the use of a hatnote. --62.252.24.130 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate: Pantomime (informally, panto)— not to be confused with a mime artist, a theatrical performer of mime—is a musical-comedy theatrical production. How exactly can one confuse a performer of theatre with a form of theatre? --62.252.24.130 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It may or may not be felicitously expressed - but it IS necessary - just read this talk page from the top down and you will see that there is indeed quite an old consensus that some thing of this kind is certainly needed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Soundofmusicals. IP, Pantomime is not a widely recognised term abroad. Some people need a bit extra to be able to differentiate between mime and Pantomime, bearing in mind the second syllable. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's necessary, so it's so badly expressed that it needs to be fixed. Panto can be confused with _mime_, but not with a mime artist.

Looking back over this page, multiple people have made this point for months, but nobody's attempted to change it, except a few people who tried to remove the disambiguation entirely (which was always reverted, and should have been). So I'll try it now. --12.249.226.210 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

With all of the above stated, I have no idea if there is a difference between "mime" and "pantomime", and if so, what the difference is. A clear and plainly-stated description of the difference, if any, would be much appreciated and valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pantomime = British mime?

Both the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Merriam-Webster dictionary describe mime and pantomime together. Is their distinction mostly a matter of geography? I ask this not because of merger, but because their close relationship warrants disambiguation hatnotes in each article, and I think they ought to be as specific as possible, not just "not to be confused with". Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to use hatnotes to explain a distinction that is meant for the body of the article. Hatnotes are only used for clerical purposes - please read WP:RELATED for further explanation. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question the distinction is much greater than geography. Pantomime is a far different thing than mime. Just read the first paragraph of this article - virtually none of the forms of entertaining mentioned there happen in mime. I am not sure how many editors will have this article on their watchlist anymore. If you don't get replies in a day or two you may want to post your question at either of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this page. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

British pantomime is not closely related to mime at all. It evolved out of Commedia dell'arte, fairy tales and certain forms of British theatre. It was originally a dumb show, but had a highly stylized presentation that had nothing in common with mime. Since at least the 19th century, British pantomime has really become a broad form of musical theatre based on certain traditional fairy tale stories. If you read the article, you will understand this. So I strongly disagree with the "broad" designation -- it should be clear that it is absolutely *not* what they think of when they think of mime. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pantomine already had a hatnote saying "not to be confused with mime" -- so get away that original hatnote too, as per WP:NAMB. And I still don't get why mime has to mention pantomime so prominently in the lead (2nd paragraph), or discuss pantomime so much in the body of the article on mime. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Mime article should *not* mention pantomime in its Lead, and so I removed the link. Furthermore, the mime article does *not* discuss British pantomime at all. It was a confusion of the different uses of the word "pantomime". I added a footnote there to clarify. I think this article clearly needs a distinguish hatnote, since most Americans, at least, will assume that "pantomime" means mime. However, the two artforms evolved away from Commedia dell'arte about 400 years ago and since then have had little to do with each other, except for the use of clown characters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Traditional Stories

Although quite a few different stories have been done as pantos at least once or twice over the years, if someone had access to a listing of (say) all the pantos presented in all the theatres of London which have done anything of the kind over the last 40 years - I suspect they would find the great majority stuck to a very short "short list" of stories (much shorter than the list we've got here!) - it's actually part of the panto tradition that's there's not a lot of different stories that get done with any frequency - but that the "big" ones get plugged quite a lot. This list actually wants further pruning - not endless expansion. It's NOT an attempt to list every story that ever has been, or might at some time be, the subject of a panto. That would defeat the whole point of the section. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In the UK there are probably no more than four pantomimes (Cinderella, Aladdin, Dick Whittington, and Jack and the Beanstalk) that are regularly produced by the big commercial managements. Because of their popularity major theatres tend to stage these in a four-year cycle. Most of the other subjects are performed by smaller, less commercially minded, venues and amateur companies. (Although non-traditional Disney-inspired fairy tales like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White are now gaining in popularity in the larger theatres too.)

What concerns me more though is the ever-lengthening 'me too' lists of productions outside the UK, particularly those in Canada.

It is simply not necessary to list every company (and I suspect many of them are amateur) that puts on a production. In the UK almost every town and village stages an amateur panto. Should we list all of these? I think not.

I propose that this list, too, is drastically pruned. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a separate entry to list Canadian panto companies? --Flexdream (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We've just fended off yet another well-intentioned attempt to extend this list (the traditional stories one) - as agreed above it actually needs to be pruned, if anything! The problem is that while almost any traditional story CAN be used for a panto VERY few are (as a general rule). Lists like this are of course magnets for people who want (misguidedly) to "complete" them.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what always happens when you have a list. Someone comes by and says, "Why isn't my favorite on the list" and edits it. But it should be pretty easy to incorporate the same information into the text—and to present it in a more useful way, to boot. (Also, the existing text has some odd grammar and doesn't read very well.) I'll can make an attempt, but it would be good for someone who actually grew up with panto in England to go over it. --12.249.226.210 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(transferred from my personal talk page - editor is referring to a cn tage he placed on the "short list we decided on above - apparently intending to reinstate the "every-growing" one.)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not take the citation needed tags off the section where you assert what you think are the most popular pantos. This section is WP:OR. If you are unable to find any references to support these assertions, the least you can do is leave in the tag to try to attract the attention of someone willing to do the research. Alternatively, we could take out the assertion that these are the most frequently done ones, and put back in the longer list that we can at least reference from, say, the list of pantos at the Drury Lane site. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I finally found a good source and have modified the paragraph according to the research on and around p. 27: Richards, Jeffrey. "Transformations", The Golden Age of Pantomime: Slapstick, Spectacle and Subversion in Victorian England, p. 27, I.B.Tauris (2014) ISBN 1780762933 -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

interwiki link confusion

short notice for reference, because this "panto/mime link complex" got repeadly mixed-up: please see d:Talk:Q39818 where i tried to clarify the differences. Holger1959 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Pantomime → British pantomime – WP:WORLDVIEW: reserving a well known word for interpretaion only as pertains to certain English speaking countries, at the expense of the majority of same, plus everyone else who uses English as a major international language, is not neutrally encyclopedic. See previous unsettled move request from 2007! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as pantomime is not the same as this particular type of theatre. Rather this kind of theatre uses pantomime. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article name has been used for a decade on Wikipedia, in hundreds of articles. Moving it would require massive respelling of links throughout the encyclopedia. Also, this is the usual meaning of "pantomime" in most English-speaking countries. It is only in the US that it is widely used to mean a dumb show by a mime artist. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the same reason: pantomime as described here is wider spread than just BrEng. – SchroCat (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, as above. Cannot see how such a move can be justified. Jack1956 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, reasons given do not justify a move. --Cornellier (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: In my view the suggested move would be disadvantageous to our readers. The Wiktionary entry defines the word 'pantomime' thus:

1. (now rare) A Classical comic actor, especially one who works mainly through gesture and mime. [from 17th c.]
2. (historical) The drama in ancient Greece and Rome featuring such performers; or (later) any of various kinds of performance modelled on such work. [from 17th c.]
3. (Britain) A traditional theatrical entertainment, originally based on the commedia dell'arte, but later aimed mostly at children and involving physical comedy, topical jokes, and fairy-tale plots. [from 18th c.]
4. Gesturing without speaking; dumb-show, mime. [from 18th c.]

Of these four, can there be any doubt that it is the third which most people who type in the word 'pantomime' will be seeking? The few visitors who have in mind, e.g., The Azerbaijan State Pantomime Theatre are well provided for by the hatnote. Tim riley talk 09:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought: it occurred to me to check American usage of the word, and I find from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary that one of its three definitions of "pantomime" is "a play for children performed during the Christmas season that is based on a fairy tale and includes singing and dancing". – Tim riley talk 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The hatnote and the lead make clear what the article is about and differences in meaning. The variation of meaning in the US is also covered in the main body of the article. There seems to be no reasonable justification for moving Robynthehode (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Meaning of the word

I see that there have been several attempts at introducing a balanced view on this page and one person co-ordinating a partial presentation. Will that one person step forward and justify his removal of even passing mentions in the lede of those meanings that have no personal resonance for him? "My version is better" is simple page-ownership.

There is a large portion of the History section that seeks to connect English pantomime to mumming plays in various ways. This entirely lacks citations and seems to be OR. It is contentious and may be removed. It has been tagged for 2 years. Would it be possibly a better use of time to see to this?

There is no other "pantomime" page, so this one must be linked in to the history of dance and classical drama, or else the term "Pantomime" must be disambiguated. It is unacceptable to render the page unfit for this broader necessity in pursuit of one's favoured "Undue Weight", non-neutral POV. Redheylin (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that when someone is reverted they automatically make some pathetic "OWN" claim? That's a variant of Godwin's law on wiki, if ever I've seen it. I have had little to do with this page in the past (and thus your uncivil and unfunded accusations cannot be aimed at me), but I do not see your re-write as an improvement, so have put it back. As basic manners and wikiquette, please leave this in place while this discussion cntinues (see WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO for guidance on this) - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to put too much emphasis on the ancient history/etymology in the Lead section. Per WP:LEAD, we focus on giving an overview of the genre and very briefly cover the key historical facts before moving into the more detailed sections in the body of the article. As for your proposed changes in the History section, to address your points above, clearly there is a connection with the Mummer's play, as a google search quickly confirms: See, e.g., this and this. I agree that references and more research are necessary here, but it is not contentious. It is possible that a separate article is warranted concerning ancient pantomime, and if there *were* one, we would gladly link to it. Or if you are simply saying that we need more links to related topics on classical dance and drama, by all means, let's link them. Other than that, your changes seem to simply be a reorganization, but they seem merely to create a bunch of stubby little paragraphs; if I have missed something, please elaborate. If you have, or would like to undertake, new research appropriate for the article, together with WP:Reliable sources, by all means, add it! I'd love to collaborate with you (or anyone), but I do not believe that there have been any previous "attempts at introducing a balanced view on this page" that have been ignored, except for various edits in the past that confused this topic with the topic of a show by a mime artist. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

//Why is it that when someone is reverted they automatically make some pathetic "OWN" claim?// Please strike this comment, which assumes bad faith and lacks civility, while ignoring the point made - that to revert edits and remove legitimate material on the grounds that "the old version is better" is a personal judgment that is unsupported by policy but is based only on personal preference, which can only be considered a valid reason for reversion if one editor believes he has total control of the quality of the article. On the other hand there is no lack of civility in my comments, and I have not addressed you previously. Redheylin (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You make a false and uncivil accusation of page ownership. Someone points that out to you, and you want the pointing out struck, while you leave in place the false and uncivil accusation? Errrmm.... – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Please. Redheylin (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And you intend to leave in the original baseless and uncivil accusation? - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at the thread above. The same people have voted 6 months ago to keep the page restricted mainly to one type of pantomime, and to surround that one type with original research. And none of those people is a contributor to the page, yet you are all here again to vote, without giving any reason, without any investment in the page, that the page as it is is (quote) "better" than any addition can make it, and to engage in disruption of all editing on that basis without any positive suggestion or interaction of any kind. That is the basis, that is the fact of the matter and there is nothing uncivil in questioning that. Redheylin (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And your input has been what, exactly – just before you start criticising others? Some sub-standard edits that took the article backwards? Yes, reverting them did put back a "better" version. That's not ownership: it's a judgement call based on knowing what the standards are. "Better" is not having pointless stubby paragraphs, for example. If you think that someone thinking you haven't done a good piece of writing is somehow "Ownership", then you have a deeply flawed way of looking at things, as you have conflated the reversion of your poor edit, with the reversion of any edit, or a good edit. No, I don't think I'll strike my comment: it is entirely justified, and your accusation is not. – SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have the greatest respect for English pantomime/music hall and for those who work to document it here but, faced with a recalcitrant and entrenched determination to accept intended edits aimed at a full elaboration of the subject "pantomime", that includes both the contemporary American usage and the classical stage, it is clear that the present page must be renamed "Pantomime in England" and the more general term be made a disambiguation. Otherwise, it is clear, the valid material that is to be added may be summarily removed for no good reason. The article at present is not fit to be linked to from classical theatre and dance pages due to the undue weight given to the mentioned aspect, and no valid reason has been raised here for reversion and removal of material. It is pointless to say "please add new material" when it is being removed by you.

As regards the few incidental points you have answered; 1) The citations produced to "prove" a connection between mumming and pantomime; in the first case there is no mention of pantomime, and the 2nd refers to pantomime in exactly that general sense that you seek to exclude. Clearly "mumming" means "miming" and it would have a place on a page that was not seeking to give undue weight to a modern English family entertainment, but the historical claim that the mumming play is a precursor in several cited respects of the modern English pantomime seems a dubious original theory for which no authority is available. Authoritative sources are required, not "more research". 2) The reorganisation is necessary in order to include all phases of pantomime, and all those phases should be rehearsed in the lede. Clearly the present opening EXcludes those wider considerations. The material is available and has not yet been added solely because of this disruption. Redheylin (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I do not see that you added any well-referenced information that is not currently included in the article. Can you please let us know what it is? Again, we would be delighted for you to help to expand this article with well-referenced, well-written encyclopedic content. I would also encourage you to write an article about classical or ancient pantomime, if you wish to do so. I agree that this article is about the theatrical genre of pantomime originally developed in England, and that the earlier precursors are included only as background for that genre. However, I don't think that Wikipedia's guideline, WP:Disambiguation, supports your plan when there is, as here, a primary topic to which most relevant bluelinks in Wikipedia refer. As I pointed out above, I am not aware that there are any other Wikipedia articles about any other genres of entertainment known as "pantomime", except for "mime artist". Also, if this topic were renamed, a massive number of links would have to be renamed. That would be, in my opinion, a useless make-work project, when the disambiguation page already steers anyone looking for another use to their desired destination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

//I do not see that you added any well-referenced information// Well, that would mean you deleted without looking - you have been deleting citations, tags and information without looking. As for the primary topic, that is "pantomime". The number of incoming links to a particular type of pantomime is irrelevant unless you can point to any policy? Which disambiguation page do you mean? Also, the stuff about mumming is still there, still contentious, still invented, still without citations. Deleting citation requests does not alter that, nor does adding references that do not support the material. Redheylin (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support moving this article to British pantomime and that English Wikipedia's article Pantomime cover the whole subject as per guidelines on global perspective in WP:BIAS. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• See above. You were knocked out of court last time and little has changed in the short intervening period. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, perhaps? - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a new discussion and as such we can get a new consensus. Please do not remove the globalization template until the discussion has reached consensus! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You've mistaken what this is about, and don't edit war over one of your pet subjects. There is already a level of global information in the text, any half-wit can see that. What is being discussed is whether to increase that level, and in what direction. Your edit warring isn't helping matters (I presume you've heard of WP:BRD?), and neither is your inflexible approach. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall oppose any such move. The title is correct as it is. Cassianto^Talk 18:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose name change. All international aspects of pantomime are covered in this article. Renaming it is totally unnecessary in my opinion. Jack1956 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - God almighty! Not this again! Stupid suggestion. Tim riley talk 21:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it's great to see the whole gang here! Now, here's the thing. One editor here thinks this article ought to be, at least mainly, about modern British panto because "that's what people come for". I came for another reason - for many centuries "pantomime" meant a dance-drama of ancient Greece and Rome, and I am interested in history of dance. There is a great deal of material on this and I was getting ready to add it, but someone does not want it - at least in the lede. Plus in the body, by the time I finish, taking the structure of the article as it stands, "British pantomime" is going to end up a long way down the page. But the material is going to go in Wikipedia. It may not be important to you people but it is important in the history of ballet and theatre. Now - this IS pantomime, without any qualification, this is the original meaning of the word, and it endured for far longer than Danny la Rue. So - you can have it in the lede and in the history in full, or you can have a disambiguation page pointing to two different pages. And I need to hear what you WANT and why - not what you oppose. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So none of the editors that is opposing has any suggestion how this article may be amplified to include all forms of pantomime with equal weight and how to divest the article of the original research it contains? Redheylin (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

See Etymology and origins: some of the information is already there. If you wish to add to that in a balanced way through the use of reliable sources then that is a pathway entirely open to you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)