Talk:The Sapphire Necklace

2006 comments

...Wasn't able to add in the business with selling the score to Metzler and buying it back. Anyone see a good place for it? Adam Cuerden 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Adam Cuerden 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've applied some further copy-edits. As the G&S Archive's Sapphire Necklace page is linked at the bottom, I didn't think it was necessary, and indeed I found it distracting, to keep re-linking it throughout the body of the article. Marc Shepherd 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite, but figured that if there was a problem with citing, best to use more-or-less University standard, and let someone else remove 'em. Adam Cuerden 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Project format for all the articles is to keep it simple by having the external links and References at the bottom. If there is a quote from a website, the cite can go in the line for clarity, or if it is from a book, the author and page number reference can go in the line. --Ssilvers 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this article sufficient proof that Sullivan disliked the book of the Sapphire Necklace enough to censor it as he did the Zoo? I'm tempted to use it, but wonder if we need more evidence to back that claim. Adam Cuerden 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

The quote from "When Love and Beauty to be married go" and the commentary on it probably flout WP:NOR. Mind you, I do not disagree that the poetry is awful, but it seems to be an original conclusion, rather than an observation drawn from a citable source. Marc Shepherd 15:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

More of a backing up of widespread existing commentary. I mean, I could cite several sources that briefly talk about the awfulness of the Sapphire Necklace libretto, but you mustn't tell us what they told you: that's not evidence. As Wikipedia allows research to support existing, citable opinions, we should be fine Adam Cuerden 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy, a statement is original research if:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source

No cited source refers to "certain oddities...an irregular meter and structure" of "When Love and Beauty." This is "an analysis or synthesis" on your part, not atributed to any other source. It is therefore "original research" as Wikipedia defines the term. Marc Shepherd 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" would count?

ah, well. It's somewhat difficult to work with Sapphire Necklace Material: There just isn't much out there. Even this biography of Chorley I have ignores it.

I'm just not comfortable with the whole "quote the brief opinion of others that the libretto is awful" without backing that up in some way. Ideas? Adam Cuerden 15:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sapphire Necklace was probably marginal as a Wikipedia article topic to begin with. Obviously, editors are free to work on what interests them, and this opera interested you. But I could make a healthy list of more important Sullivan compositions that don't yet have Wikipedia articles, about which there is no shortage of verifiable, citable material. By virtue of its status as an un-produced lost opera, it will be difficult to find much about The Sapphire Necklace in citable sources. I mean, it's pretty telling that even a biography of Chorley is silent about the work. The opera was unimportant. At some point, we will need to confine ourselves to what verifiable sources have said. An article in GASBAG or the G&S News would be the place for original research about it. Marc Shepherd 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Princess Toto, then?

Years ago, when I began writing a new libretto for the opera, someone on SavoyNet told me that the plot was based on Mary, Queen of Scots. I asked that person how they knew this, but an answer came then not. And I never heard from them again. Probably doesn't count as evidence, but I thought it worth a mention. Slfarrell 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph flow

Careful when removing POV phrases - a few of the paragraphs are ending up as unconnected sentences. Adam Cuerden 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Which fact did you think needed to be supported? The lyric's lines are irregular on their face. If there is something else about the sentence you don't think is clear on its face, rewrite it. -- Ssilvers 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is original research. It needs to be cleaned up in terms of what can be verified from citable sources. Marc Shepherd 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove what you want. I'm sick of the opera right now. Adam Cuerden 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that now one can find all the info here in one of the references cited or in links accessible in those two references. --Ssilvers 16:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is resolved. Marc Shepherd 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Have rearranged things a bit to avoid implying a relationship between that quote and the rest: There's cites for the poor libretto. The quote is not needed. I did use some judgement in standardising the libretto for "When love and beauty" - Chorley may have written in some of the repeats for all I know - but I have tried to be as accurate in reflexting him as I could.

It is possible "Smiles on the pair." and "Though rose-buds pant and blow" are one line. This makes the rhyme scheme match verse 2, but makes the line awkwardly long. Best guess is that it's either a line trimmed by Sullivan to half its length, in which case we can't find out without the original libretto anyway, or just an orphan line in the rhyme scheme, since such lines do appear in Kenilworth regularly as well. Adam Cuerden 22:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rating

I would be inclined to argue this was at least B-class. Only thing not present is Chorley's rather self-serving reviews of the concerts (!!!) in the Æthenium. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you wrote the article, so you're not in a good position to judge it objectively. I defer to Marc on this one. By the way, none of the articles in the entire project are rated higher than B, currently. -- Ssilvers 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but Start says that it indcateds that a lot more needs to be added. What could be added? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marc changed it to B. As I said, I defer to him on this article. -- Ssilvers 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Weel, let's see if we can get this up to a level where we can definitively say that we can put a hold on work on it, with one of the levels the g&S project itself can't assign. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with it. I say leave it and move on to something more important. You can always come back later. -- Ssilvers 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...I did phrase that badly - mainly meant "Let's submit it and see what happens." Also submitted Haste to the Wedding. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Unfortunately, this article has no references whatsoever and therefore is far from being a good article. The Filmaker 20:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Class

I don't see how it can even be a B without a plot synopsis. -- Ssilvers 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Easily: The plot is entirely unknown. We can't make up plot out of thin air. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Still, it makes the article inherently incomplete, and I don't think it's really a B, or even worth trying to improve any more. I think we should just leave it alone and let it be a happy "start" article. -- Ssilvers 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with not improving it further, save, perhaps, adding references. Class is arguable (it does, after all, have all available information save reviews of the concerts), but who cares anyway? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Farrell libretto and production

Scott, can you add the details of the production using your libretto? A brief mention of that production in the article would be of interest, since no other modern perfomances appear to have taken place? The Mary QoS speculation can't really be mentioned unless there is something to cite to. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. It's a little sloppy, but it's a beginning. Should I add a list of characters and go into detail on the plot or give a list of musical numbers or something? It seems kinda skimpy. Slfarrell 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this theatre co. have a website? Is it prof. or amateur? Who conducted? I don't think it's worth listing the characters or going into much more detail on the non-Sullivan material. If people are interested, we have given them a link to follow. Also feel free to add your own website to the list of external links or any other website that has more info on the piece. --Ssilvers 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that all your questions have already been researched and addressed in the notes. We didn't have a conductor since the space didn't allow for it. It was a sad production. Slfarrell 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)