Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan

Gilbert and Sullivan articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 3 1 1 1 6 GA 1 6 1 3 11 B 2 13 32 43 90 C 3 26 197 1 227 Start 6 132 1 139 Stub 10 10 List 3 2 5 Category 29 29 Template 3 3 NA 1 3 38 42 Assessed 6 23 70 391 70 2 562 Total 6 23 70 391 70 2 562 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,955 Ω = 4.05

Project banner image

The image File:Gilbert facing right.jpg should not be used in this project's banner template, {{WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan}} as shown at the top of this page, because it's a flipped image – note the breast pocket and button holes on the wrong side. I realize that it neatly corresponds to Sullivan's image on the right, but that aesthetic consideration cannot allow such a fake image to be used. I suggest the banner doesn't need any images, but if they're wanted, File:Photo of W. S. Gilbert.jpg might do for a left/right arrangement, or both images could be replaced with File:Gilbert & Sullivan.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, I hate the last image that MB linked. What do you think, user:Tim riley? What's wrong with a flipped image, anyhow? Is there a guideline against it? MB, please note that the major contributors left on this project are me and Tim riley, but his page says he is on a wikibreak, so we ought to wait for him to return. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a flipped image is appalling. It is a visual lie, a falsification, and against everything Wikipedia should stand for (and on the whole does); it should not appear on any page, whether an article or a project page. Well, you did ask! Tim riley talk 20:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The current images are good and there is no need to change them. If it was in article it might be worth debating whether flipping an image is bad, but such debate is pointless for a project banner template. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES § Editing images: "… images showing … faces … should not be reversed", and § Horizontal placement: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they 'look' toward the text. (Do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation; faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A guideline for articles is not mandatory for a wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I know that (although the MOS carries more weight than an average guideline). I just wasn't sure whether it was a deliberate decision to put a reversed image into the project's banner in 2009; after all, that means it's widely seen. Whether it stays or not is no skin of my nose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot remember how this reversed image was chosen. User:Tim riley, what solution/changes, if any, would you suggest? Do you like the first image suggested above by MB? Also, User:Johnuniq, thanks, but I will be happy to go with any reasonable solution that meets with Tim's approval, since I trust his judgment on this; I thought this image met with his approval for the past 11 years, since he never complained about it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've not been a regular visitor to this page, and have not clocked the reverse image until it came up just now. I'd settle for the WSG image suggested by Michael Bednarek. Tim riley talk 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Then, Tim or MB, would you please substitute the image in the two templates on the Project page? I have no idea how to do that. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I created Template:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/sandbox with the suggested image. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yuck. The old image is so much brighter and nicer. But I don't see much on the internet of Gilbert facing to the right. Obviously he preferred his left profile. Sigh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Thanks for letting us know! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Just for fun

In case you haven't seen these, you may enjoy them:[1][2] Maybe it's a genre we can make a WP-article on? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Political pastiches of G&S Go back to the 19th century. Randy Rainbow did this one 5 years ago. What kind of article do you mean? We already have Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't very serious, but I was thinking of a "Donald Trump inspired G & S pastiches" or similar. But as you say, it's not a new thing. And "As some day it may happen" seems to be getting new lyrics with a political slant now and then (in actual productions). Thanks for the Rainy Rainbow, I liked it!

Wikipedians who never add citations to their lists, they never would be missed, I'm sure they won't be missed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Btw, it seems that the links under The_Mikado#Musical_numbers has no content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Which links do you mean? Can you point me more specifically to the problem? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

See for example the the first three links under Act I:Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Wikisource has the full libretto here, but I don't know how to link the song titles to it. I am not the one who linked them I imagine that the links used to work, and then the website was updated so that they no longer work. Maybe User:Adam Cuerden can fix it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Will have a look, poke me if I don't in a couple days: somewhat distracted by dealing with dad's estate Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 23:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Here's how you do this

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page%3AThe_Mikado_or_the_town_of_titipu.djvu%2F3&diff=13492888&oldid=13128996 is me adding a link - I'm afraid Wikisource is... weird for formatting of pages.

This allows us to link to wikisource:The_Mikado/Act_I#If you want to know who we are, and - if no-one removes the anchor - this will work perfectly.

I think I'd like to check that someone over on Wikisource doesn't break this before doing more, though.

Note that the Wikisource version is the published libretto version, that is, it's more-or-less what Gilbert wrote, not what Sullivan set. For example, the song in the libretto ends at "If that's your idea you're wrong, oh", when, as I'm sure we all know, as sung, the lyrics there continue using repeats, roughly, "oh. / If that's your idea you're wrong. / If you want to know who we are / We are gentlemen of Japan / On vase and jar on screen and fan / On many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many a jar, oh, oh, oh, oh. / On vase and jar on screen and fan" . Adding those repeats to Wikisource will not be looked on well, from what I can tell. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 08:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to barge in here and mess with stable content, but I have a knee-jerk reaction against having article-links that look like wiki-links taking people outside en-WP.

The default assumption is that these links will lead to other en-WP articles, and there is a Wikisource "flag" under "External links". Is including wikisource links like these good WP:MOS? It's not that bad, unlike stuff like Gillian Dobb which really gets on my nerves. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help and observations here, Gråbergs (can we call you GGS for short?) Adam, what would you think of removing the Wikisource links and possibly adding cites to the relevant Web Opera pages at the G&S Archive instead? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Absolutely!) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My thought, offhand, is that given the Major-General's song has its own article, that kind of implies at least a couple songs in the Mikado could have their own article - "Three little maids from school" and "As sometimes it may happen" being obvious examples. As such, we're probably best just linking the web opera and libretto, and leave links in the list of numbers to only those songs with articles. While we haven't really pulled out a number of songs, and it may not ever reach the stage that, say Cole Porter musicals get to, I think being consistent with musicals (as we just saw) and other operas (e.g. Carmen#Musical_numbers) is probably best. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. Would you please go ahead to de-link the Wikisource links and add the relevant archive link? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox section

If nobody objects I’d like to change this to “WP G&S follows the same guidance found at its parent project WP opera” with a relevant link. The current wording is a weak appeal to a (non-)authority that doesn’t even say what it claims. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I object. Our [current guidance] is better, except that now that the opera project changed its guidance, we should remove the clause about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who actually works on these articles, I also object for the excellent reasons stated by Ssilvers above. Jack1956 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Concurring in objection. I-boxes are excellent for articles on e.g. politicians, sports stars, clergy etc where career stats can be summarised, but would be useless clutter here. It is disheartening when a single editor bustles in claiming to know better than all the people who have actually worked on the articles. Tim riley talk 08:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes because working on G&S has so much to do with being an expert on infoboxes. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What a curious position to take. It's more about having the subject expertise to see where the failings of IBs don't help the reader - which should be the key driver in all we do. The original proposition is also based on a fallacy: there is no claim to authority, just a statement of what the current project practice is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

To me “making up your own rules” is no different from “claiming authority”, even if you call it “established best practice based on project consensus”. The village pump makes new policies and guidelines, nobody else should because Wikipedia isn’t the Balkans. Dronebogus (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, what a rather curious statement. And one not based in reality either. There is no "making up your own rules" or "claiming authority". You're also wrong on the village pump being the only place to make us policies and guidelines. In fact, the only point you are correct on is that Wikipedia isn't the Balkans (neither is it Ouagadougou, Wagga Wagga or Outer Mongolia, but I have no idea what that has to do with anything. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I know one place where polices and guidelines aren’t supposed to be made, which is WikiProjects. Dronebogus (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No-one is saying they are, but your ability to misconstrue the worst position from any situation and then make a storm in a teacup never ceases to amaze. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I know this isn’t going to convince you et al of anything, but maybe this will make it easier to understand why I find these weird anti-infobox pockets so annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What a waste of time, but if you wish to write pages that do nothing more than parrot existing policies and guidelines, then that's entirely up to you. The question over your obsession with IBs is entirely separate from how some editors on WP approach the question of their use and the very real concerns they have over their use. The questioning of their universal use goes much wider than individual projects, as can be seen from the recent attempts at the village pump to try and force them onto all biographies. That rejection is the consensus of WP at the moment, and maybe something you should take on board and mull over - although I doubt you will take what I am sure will be such an exhausting route for you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Here’s how I see it: the community rejected the universal rule because it sounds bad in abstract. But when given a concrete example like most RfCs the community almost always chooses an infobox Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It was rejected because it was a bad idea that the community did not want. Most people are unwilling to get dragged into the IB debate, having seen the constant pushing and disruption drag on for too many years. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If you created and developed a high quality Wikipedia article, Dronebogus, I would not come by to delete the infobox from it. I would respect your judgment, as the person who put in the bulk of the work to research, create and develop the article, that it was helpful to the readers of that article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)