Talk:Arthur Sullivan

WP:DISINFOBOX

Per WP:INFOBOX, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in the articles that you templated because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. In addition throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes, so adding an infobox would degrade the consistency of design throughout these articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The above was added after someone requested an infobox. It can be archived if there is no further discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've set an archive on the page, so it should fall of naturally fairly soon. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing of operas for Boosey

At some point Sullivan and Josiah Pittman edited some 20-odd operas that were published by Boosey and Co., probably in the 1880s. Seems to me this would be worth mentioning (and providing a date, if possible). - kosboot (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Young doesn't mention the enterprise with Pittman, but Jacobs (p. 61 in my paperback copy) writes:

A longer-lasting task was his work on Boosey's 'Royal Edition' of operatic vocal scores by composers ranging from Mozart to Wagner (Lohengrin). In 25 of these editions Sullivan's name as editor is coupled with that of Josiah Pittman; in seven scores Sullivan worked unaided. Presumably the piano reductions are the editor's. Along with the rival series of vocal scores published by Novello, these were vital tools of Britain's operatic life.

I'm not vigorously agin mentioning this, and if there is a consensus to do so I shan't complain, but my feeling is that what merits just 70 words in a 460-page book doesn't really merit inclusion in the confines of a 9,500-word encyclopaedia article. It's a matter of proportionality, I'd say, but I hope we shall see views from other editors on the point. – Tim riley talk 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Afterthought: I have just looked in Grove and the ODNB: neither mentions Sullivan's work on the Boosey vocal scores in its "Life" section, but Grove includes in the "Works" section the seven operas Sullivan arranged: "Vocal scores of operas (1860–70: Beethoven (Fidelio), Bellini (La sonnambula), Flotow (Martha), Gounod (Faust), Mozart (Don Giovanni), Rossini (Il barbiere di Siviglia), Verdi (Il trovatore)". Grove adds: "with J. Pittman: works by Auber, Balfe, Bellini, Donizetti, Gounod, Meyerbeer, Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, Wagner, Weber". I'm still agnostic about adding any of this to the article, and will be interested to see the views of other editors. Tim riley talk 19:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion. This must have been a time-consuming project for Sullivan, and it might round out a reader's understanding of his career, especially if we can nail down a time period. If it was the 80s, could this partly explain why his composing output dropped off so much during the decade? Perhaps something quite brief could be added, maybe footnoting the names of the composers? BTW, it's also on p. 61 of the Jacobs hardcover. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As Grove says (see above) it was 1860–70, before Sullivan was well known. A useful source of income for a struggling young composer but it doesn't strike me as central to the narrative of his life. Tim riley talk 20:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Further afterthought: If there is a consensus to this effect we could alter a sentence in the Rising composer section to read "His compositions were not enough to support him financially, and from 1861 to 1872 he worked as a church organist, which he enjoyed; as a music teacher, which he hated and gave up as soon as he could; and arranger of vocal scores of popular operas." We could then add a footnote, based on Grove: "Between 1860 and 1870 Sullivan arranged seven vocal scores of operas for Boosey and Co: Beethoven (Fidelio), Bellini (La sonnambula), Flotow (Martha), Gounod (Faust), Mozart (Don Giovanni), Rossini (Il barbiere di Siviglia), Verdi (Il trovatore), and he collaborated with J. Pittman in arranging other operas by some of the above and Auber, Balfe, Donizetti, Gounod, Meyerbeer, Wagner and Weber". Tim riley talk 20:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That would do the trick, but I would add to the footnote ...with Josiah Pittman in arranging vocal scores for some 25 other operas by the above and Auber.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Good. If there is a consensus for such a change as you suggest, I'll do it on compulsion! Tim riley talk 20:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to Kosboot. I had noticed this in the past and thought fleetingly about it. I think that, on balance, it is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It may seem like only a footnote in Sullivan's life, but one finds these scores "all over the place." I would suggest a sentence - specially because, as a music librarian, I was looking for some evidence of a date on these things and none is to be found. Thus I went looking in Sullivan's bio in Grove and here for an indication of a date and still none to be found. And again, it may be just a "footnote" in Sullivan's career, but I just checked, and of Donizetti operas alone, there are hundreds of copies in libraries. Thus I would suggest a sentence providing a date (so people know when these things were created). At the very least, it does provide hard evidence that Sullivan was well-versed in 19th century opera. - kosboot (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that seems to me a consensus. I can't imagine anyone will leap in later and gainsay us. I'll do the necessary tomorrow. Tim riley talk 21:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Location of death

"..of heart failure, following an attack of bronchitis, at his flat in London"

Where in London was his flat? Harfarhs (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Westminster (SW1 in present-day terms). Tim riley talk 16:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me; thank you. I think including the district would improve the article. Harfarhs (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We know the address (a mansion block, long demolished). Do you think it would be helpful to add it? Seems a bit too much detail to me, but happy to add if wanted. Tim riley talk 13:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind it. It wasn't in the City of London, and we certainly don't want people to think that he lived in Islington! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheek! We Islingtonians are innocents! Shall tweak the article. Tim riley talk 19:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead picture

The lead picture has long been

This picture, seen later in the article

was briefly also added to the lead. I think it inappropriate for the lead, as it dates from 1870 – before Sullivan was well known and before the works for which he is well known were composed. In my view restoring the later image to the lead was the correct course. Tim riley talk 11:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)