Talk:Cultural influence of H.M.S. Pinafore
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge into Cultural Influence of Gilbert and Sullivan edit
I don't understand why we need this article in addition to Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Isn't it better to steer people to one common article who are interested in the cultural influence of G&S operas and songs? I it would be better help readers to understand the overall impact and legacy of G&S rather than to break down that influence show by show. I suggest that we merge the article into Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Let me know if you object? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree. I don't think you could isolate the cultural influence of each opera and do a good job of it. I'd merge.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am neutral at the moment. I'd like to know why Shoemaker's Holiday, who created the article, thought it was needed. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Largely because, after several weeks, it was pretty clear that it would be extremely difficult to get this up to featured article status. But we had enough solid references that I could make a decent summary, so I made the summary, and spun off the rest. By all means, do whatever you want with it, just keep it the hell away from the Pinafore article until after it's fully referenced. I absolutely refuse to work on the article with this millstone a part of it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, you wanted to remove material from the H.M.S. Pinafore article that you felt would prevent it from being an FA candidate, and forking off this article was the most expedient way of doing that. But as I gather, you wouldn't oppose merging this material into Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, just as long as it's not in the Pinafore article. Is that right? Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. I was a little ill when I wrote that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, you wanted to remove material from the H.M.S. Pinafore article that you felt would prevent it from being an FA candidate, and forking off this article was the most expedient way of doing that. But as I gather, you wouldn't oppose merging this material into Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, just as long as it's not in the Pinafore article. Is that right? Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Largely because, after several weeks, it was pretty clear that it would be extremely difficult to get this up to featured article status. But we had enough solid references that I could make a decent summary, so I made the summary, and spun off the rest. By all means, do whatever you want with it, just keep it the hell away from the Pinafore article until after it's fully referenced. I absolutely refuse to work on the article with this millstone a part of it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am neutral at the moment. I'd like to know why Shoemaker's Holiday, who created the article, thought it was needed. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll work on merging the articles when I have chance. Of course, most of this stuff is already in the Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan article, so mostly the work consists of adding the new references into the other article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's just... a huge amount of work for little profit, and I figured that by spinning it off (keeping the best of what we had found), we could move on to the more useful parts of the Pinafore article, without it hanging over our heads, and the information would all still be there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)