Talk:The Arcadians (musical)

The dreaded OR strikes again

Would you kindly add a reference for the new information that you added to this article? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be constructive if we can. Can you suggest what would be a suitable reference? The plot summary from Ganzl? The libretto of the work itself? This is such an obvious inference from the text of the play that I really don't think it could possibly be construed as OR in the Wiki sense, or as "literary interpretation" in any sense whatever. The "Arcadian" characters visit London in order to "convert" the Londoners - that is a point they do not just mention - it is laboured over and over! To say that they don't succeed is equally self evident.

Just imagine (if you can) how much of the "Musical theatre" article would survive this kind of thing! On these grounds it is about 90% pure OR!!! I hasten to add I think it (the "Musical theatre" article) is near perfect, and that referencing every possible "OR" point would not improve it one iota.

OR is an important concept, and I do believe in referencing anything likely to be the subject of genuine controversy, but if it is not kept within reason the result will not be "improved" articles but totally emasculated ones!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that anything that is in the script itself should be summarized in the article, and I encourage you to correct or improve the synopsis if you find that it does not adequatly summarize the script in any respect. However, your assertion that "The work also satirises the assumptions of the Christian missionary movement" needs a reference. Some authority may have made a statement that lends sufficient support to your assertion, and the article would be improved by adding it. As for the rest of the sentence, if it belongs in the synopsis, please move it there. If it is "background" analysis, please add a reference.

The Musical Theatre article does not have in-line references. However, I believe that every statement in it can be referenced from one or more of the references listed at the bottom of the article, including John Kenrick's wonderful musicals.101 website. So, it is adequately referenced, just not as conveniently as in-line references. I totally agree with you that it would be a low-value exercise (and a lot of work), to go through the whole thing to find the cite for every assertion in the article and then give all the references in-line. In the case of the Arcadians article, all the information comes from the references given, but now you have added new and unreferenced information that must be referenced or deleted per WP:V. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Silent film

I hadn't realised that it was a silent film. (Thank you, Ss, for spotting that.) In the circs, is it perhaps potentially confusing to mention Louis Levy as musical director, the more so because one has no evidence of what he contributed in that capacity. Shall we delete mention of him? Tim riley talk 19:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, he certainly gets the music credit, and so he either arranged the music or composed it, so I've made an adjustment. I would continue to name him, as his contribution was more important than you originally thought. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)