Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Gilbert and Sullivan has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
June 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
May 9, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

|upright is not a default.[edit]

"Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size says upright can be used to scale an image "Only where a smaller or larger image is appropriate". It's not appropriate to change the user's stated preference for every image in the article. The default width, as stated in the user's preferences, is a default width, and the mobile site is there fr those with tiny screens to get around any other issues. If the screen is so small that 220px is a problem then the mobile site should be being used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Adam. The images under discussion are, IMO, too big and crowd one upon another for readers using wide-screen monitors and default settings. Therefore, for these images, "a smaller image is appropriate", and the "upright" code makes them fit nicely. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers use default settings, so I think your argument above does not hold water, as Sir Roderic would say. Also, it is disingenuous for you to exaggerate by saying "every image", when you know very well that the images under discussion are not "every image", but rather selected ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, every vertically-aligned one. But it's still rather a big drop in sie, to the point of making many of the images too small to make out the significant features; Patience, for instance, makes the actual people unviewable. I'd rather cut one - Gondoliers seems a good choice, as it only really gives insight to the opera if you already know it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the Patience image looks fine at this size. If a reader wants to see more detail, he/she can click on it. The Gondoliers image, does not impinge on any around it, so I don't see how cutting it would help the layout at all. The Utopia image, and the two images around it are all very close together and are squeezing the text, so if you want to delete an image, it would be the Utopia ballroom image; this is because Utopia is one of G&S's least important works, and the image merely illustrates the opera, whereas the two images around it both explain to the reader something important about the partnership. Still, I don't think it's necessary to cut it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to File:1881_Savoy_Theatre.jpg and File:D'oyly-carte-the-joy-of-three-generations-1921.jpg or the left-aligned ones around Utopia? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The left-aligned ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[left]If we're going to drop one, I'd say the Entr'acte. Too many black-and-white sketches in a row if we lose Utopia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The Entr'acte one illustrates the press interest in the important, long-awaited reunion of G&S. If the Utopia ballroom one were removed, I would increased the size of the Entr'acte image and move it to the right side. But, again, I am not requesting the removal of any images; only pointing out my opinion that the Utopia ballroom one is the least necessary in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
On which subject, what do you think of replacing the Crystal Palace image with http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/99471608/ ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't care. The old one ain't broke. If you are certain that it is a far superior image that would look better in the same place in the article, feel free to upload it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Humorist[edit]

Before anyone else gets into a tizzy about this spelling, let me quote from the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (as given in my edit summary):
humorist, humorous (not humour-)
humour (US humor)
--2005 edn, page 177
I grant it is understandable that such an apparent anomaly would confuse some people. Bjenks (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)