Talk:La Basoche

London 1891 cast
The complete London cast was:
 * Louis XII -  W H Burgon
 * Duc de Longueville -  David Bispham and Wallace Brownlow
 * Clement Marot -  Ben Davies and Joseph O'Mara
 * Jehan L'Eville -  Charles Kenningham
 * Roland -  Charles Copland
 * Master Guillot -  John Le Hay
 * Chancellor of the Basoche -  Frederick Bovill
 * Equerry of the King -  Wilson Sheffield
 * Grand Provost -  Mr Uridge
 * Marie d'Angleterre -  Esther Palliser
 * Colette - Lucile Hill
 * Jeanette -  Esmé Lee
 * Clarice -  Kate Vito

We have noted only the blue-linked folks in the article. Does anyone think a separate column in the table should be added for this cast? Normally, the opera articles do not give a column for even the very successful London productions of, for example, Offenbach works, but perhaps this practice should be changed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current way of only giving a third column for revisions or new versions is sound (I think also there are some where the premiere was in a small centre, followed by a production at a major house). In addition there seem to be several articles which are weighed down by too much detail on British or American productions, in relation to the original composition (in the case of Messager, see Les p'tites Michu, where two-thirds is based around British or American versions, or Véronique (operetta). It would also stray a long way from what one might find in an encyclopedia, say New Grove. Conversely, should, say, very successful Vienna or Budapest productions of My Fair Lady have a separate column for those casts? - Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by "only giving a third column for revisions and new versions"? It seems like the opposite, that there is rarely a third column for revisions or new versions.... Can you clarify? I really do not think there is too much info on English-language versions of Les p'tites Michu and Véronique: rather, there is far too little information about the original production. As soon as someone can translate information from the French article or add information from French sources, the article will be better balanced, but the problem is not that there is too much English info. After all, this is English Wikipedia, so these extremely successful English adaptations would seem to be of significant interest. Also, I would say that Yes! If a production of My Fair Lady in Vienna or Budapest ran for the same number of performances as the Broadway or West End production, then it should certainly be described. At WP:MUSICAL we usually don't use a casting table but instead mention the notable names in a narrative paragraph. See for instance Hair (musical), which is a much more complete article than any of these operetta articles, where we discuss the various productions and try to put them in context. It is unfortunate that these operetta articles are so incomplete, but I don't think there is too much information included about these extremely popular and notable London productions. It would be nice if the Opera project focused a few of its French speakers on expanding the historical information and looked for critical reception by the French newspapers, analysis of the music, etc.... -- Ssilvers (talk), 00:03, 25 September 2009


 * I agree with comments made by both of you. I agree with Ssilvers that the information about notable American/UK productions is perfectly fine in the article and that the answer to any over emphasis on English productions is not to remove content but to add more content on foreign language productions. On the other hand, I agree with Cg2p0B0u8m that the roles table should normally only include the premiere cast of a work. Exceptions can and should be made with works like Les vêpres siciliennes which is often performed in two different versions. Other notable productions/adaptations/casts can be discussed in a "performance history" section. See Aida for a good example of how this could be done.Singingdaisies (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see a consensus here. I'm not sure that it would be very easy to draw up hard and fast rules (e.g. at WP:WPO) for the roles table, however.  I personally am dubious about having a column for the Italian (or Portuguese!) version of Les vêpres siciliennes - the arguments for an extra column for Aida and Don Carlos are better but differ from each other (respectively, "real" premiere and significantly revised version).  Anyone like to comment on the War and Peace table?  Then there's La Périchole, where, thank goodness, there is no column for the Met's travesty, which, however, has far too much prominence in the text, and Geneviève de Brabant, where the third version has a column but the second version is regarded (at least by Opera Grove) as definitive.


 * As for English-language premieres of operettas and similar works, I suspect that nobody these days performs the adapted versions that prevailed in Victorian and Edwardian times, though of course some of the adapters and performers are certainly notable and deserve a mention in the text.


 * Hope all this is coherent! --GuillaumeTell 17:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a hard and fast rule would be hard to put together. Each case really has to be taken on an individual basis. I personally find the Les vêpres siciliennes table helpful because of the name changes of some of the roles between the Italian and French versions (and it is performed more often in Italian and not the original French). I agree that the Met production of La Périchole should not be added to the roles table, however I have no problem with the content in the performance history. Personally I found it to be an interesting read. Some balance could be brought by adding more content about other productions. I also have no problem with the approach taken at Geneviève de Brabant either. It seems like a reasonable solution. As for War and Peace... I'm not a big fan of the massive table. I personally would prefer to see all but the premiere concert and stage casts info removed and the text on the performance history expanded.Singingdaisies (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Title translation
I think a translation of the title might be helpful for readers. Unfortunately, nothing catchy comes to my mind; the best I can suggest is The Guild of Law Clerks. Is there anything in the literature? I couldn't find anything in Grove; the article and a few books mention an English translation, but again, I couldn't find any English title. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was called "La Basoche" in the English productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Information from Gänzl and Traubner
We need to consider the possibility that the selective suppression of information from these sources gives the reader the erroneous impression that these authors considered the London show to be both a critical and financial success, which obviously neither do. For example, Traubner writes "but there was little business" and Gänzl writes "a splendid critical reception was not followed by public interest and Carte announced that he would play La Basoche in rotation with Sullivan's Ivanhoe and Bamberg's Elaine before the whole scheme collapsed." Traubner also directly connects the sale of the theatre to the lack of financial success of this show. It seems to me that the lengthy footnote which was added here does not refute them, but corroborates them. On the other hand, it might be a good idea to also include some quotes of the critical reaction to the show. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is correction and the use of better sources, not suppression. The show ran for 2-1/2 months. By opera standards, it was a popular, as well as critical, success.  We give the length of the run and do not need the editorializing by Gänzl, whose opinion does not agree with researchers who looked at the issue much more closely, such as Jacobs.  As Jacobs writes, the reason that the opera house closed was not because either Ivanhoe or La Basoche failed to run forever, but rather that an opera house cannot live on only two operas.  Carte had solicited operas from half a dozen other writers, but they did not come through with completed works.  He also began production of The Flying Dutchman, but when the other operas fell through, he cancelled the rest of the season and leased out the theatre.  After a year, he called it quits and sold the theatre.  Gänzl (as you summarize him) gets so many of the facts wrong that he is not a reliable source concerning the London production, at least compared with a specialist like Jacobs.  If Traubner says what you say he does, then he is also obviously wrong and probably is merely passing on Gänzl's conclusion (Gänzl and Traubner cannot be expected to have researched this one issue in depth, as they are trying to cover numerous shows, whereas Jacobs is concentrating on Sullivan, and the closure of the opera house was a major event for Sullivan's career).  You cannot intelligently discuss the closure of the opera house without looking at Ivanhoe and all of the history concerning Carte's negotiations with the several composers (not just Bamberg), as Jacobs does.  Moreover, a fuller discussion should go in the theatre's article, not here, so I've put the stuff into a footnote that is not directly germane to La Basoche.  There is more useful information in the Richard D'Oyly Carte article and the Ivanhoe (opera) article, if anyone is interested in following up on that.  As for quoting the critics, yes, by all means, but of course we should also give information about the reception of the French premiere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see what you're saying, but from a typical musical theatre point of view, a hit show is expected to fill a house night after night. Clearly this show had limited appeal and failed to keep the theatre open for an extended run on its own. So actually Gänzl and Traubner are "correct" from a musical theatre point of view. I don't think they're being critical. They're just stating it as a fact. If we had a source that said, oh no, they're wrong, it was selling out and receipts were great, that would refute them. Anyone who reads these sources may wonder why their comments are omitted. But you seem to know quite a bit about this, so I'll defer to your judgment for now, but we may be able to come up with a better way to handle this down the line. I'll think about it some more. And thanks for the links. (BTW, one of the links in the footnote appears to be dead, so I switched it to an archived copy.) Here is the link to page from the Traubner footnote, where, if it works for you, you can read him yourself. Since Traubner quotes some of the critical reception for Carte's London production, why don't we use it?  Just because we don't have critical commentary for the French production, doesn't mean we have to omit it for the London production. Besides, since this is the English Wikipedia, it seems appropriate to let people how it was received there. (I certainly have no objection to putting a lot of detail about Carte's production, or including the casts for London and NY in the table. The more information, the better, in my opinion.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, in 1891, a show that ran from November to February did not have a bad run. You are applying modern standards, and you are also applying musical theatre standards, but Carte and the critics treated La Basoche as an opera. For an opera, this was a very good run. Indeed, the London premiere ran longer than the Paris premiere. Gänzl and Traubner are not convincing at all and, given what the experts in the field write, they seem to have jumped to their editorial conclusions. Yes, that is what I remembered Traubner to say. He is correct about the facts, but his *conclusions* about what they say regarding the run of the show of the amount of "business" are a brain fart -- I think he would have known better, if he had thought for a moment about this being produced as a full-scale opera. If you want a real understanding about this, you'll have to read the cited Jacobs' DNB article on Carte, Tony Joseph's booklets on the D'Oyly Carte (neither of which I have access to right now), and the contemporary sources with respect to this issue. I'm looking at Ainger's book right now, and he reports that W. S. Gilbert attended the first night (he disliked opera, but wanted to be supportive of Carte, which whom he had recently reconciled). He reported to Mrs. Carte that he liked the music and said that the staging was "perfect ... too good for a high class opera". (Ainger, pp 331–332, quoting a letter from Gilbert to Helen Carte). There is much misunderstanding about the closure of the Royal English Opera House, and many people misreported about it, blaming Ivanhoe for its failure, when, in fact, Ivanhoe had a record-breaking run for an opera (as even Traubner notes). See also Gordon-Powell, Robin. Ivanhoe, full score, Introduction, vol. I, p. XII–XIII, 2008, The Amber Ring, and The Pall Mall Gazette, 16 January 1892. I do not claim that La Basoche was a "hit show", but it was definitely not a popular failure; to state as much would simply be perpetuating a myth. Once again, this Wikipedia article states the exact opening and closing dates. Those are the facts and they do not need speculative elaboration. Also, I already said to you "As for quoting the critics, YES, by all means". How could I have been any clearer? I never conditioned it on anything else, I simply pointed out that the article does not have any reception section for its premiere production, which it should. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, let me back up a step and explain the context for why I think Gänzl and Trabner got fooled. I know this is long, but I think it's a pretty good explanation: Throughout the 1880s, Gilbert and Sullivan and their producer Richard D'Oyly Carte, had an unprecedented string of successes with their comic operas at the Savoy Theatre. Never before in the history of theatre, worldwide, had one writing team produced a string of shows so successful that they each could be depended upon to run about a year, and a new one could usually be ready to stage by the time the old one closed. Nevertheless, Sullivan became increasingly discontented with writing comic opera.  He was eager to try his hand at serious opera, and he was egged on by his friends and by the artistic musical establishment of the time, who assured him that he was squandering his great talent on comic opera.  At the same time, Carte was very ambitious and thought that, with Sullivan and other English composers, he could found a new school of ENGLISH grand opera.  So, with his fortune from producing G&S, he built the Royal ENGLISH OPERA House (note the name).  As I noted, he negotiated with at least half a dozen English (or at least British) composers to write full-scale operas on themes of English literature original English stories.  The first of these was, of course, Sullivan's Ivanhoe, based on the novel.  So, the opera house opened with Ivanhoe, which ran as noted, for a record-setting long run, *FOR AN OPERA*, of 150 consecutive nights, with alternating casts. After this closed, none of the other English opera composers had come through with a completed opera, and Carte was forced to close the opera house.  He then arranged with Messager to produce the British premiere of La Basoche, but this was not an English opera at all -- it was merely a stopgap to put something into the dark theatre, which was already bleeding red ink. Carte could not have imagined that La Basoche would save the opera house all by itself, and Carte planned a production of The Flying Dutchman, which was *also* not an English opera.  But Carte had bit off more than he could chew.  The running costs of the large-scale operas that he staged at the Royal English Opera House were much higher than the cost of running the efficient G&S comic operas at the smaller Savoy.  So, the critics liked La Basoche, and it had, I contend, a very respectable run.  But it was not a huge hit, and even if it had been, it would not have saved the opera house.  So, contemporary and later writers blamed mostly Ivanhoe (and here you see them blaiming La Basoche) for the failure of the opera house, but it was the fault of neither opera -- it was Carte's miscalculation from day one of the real costs of the venture, and also his failure to understand that commissioning a half dozen operas simultaneously from separate composers does not, in fact, get you half a dozen completed operas in 6 months (or even a year), the way G&S had always delivered new works to him reliably.  So, Gänzl and Trabner did not have time, in writing their massive works surveying hundreds of productions, to stop and do the research about this opera house and what really went wrong there, and instead, the relied on the accounts of contemporary theatre writers who were merely voicing their disappointment that La Basoche was not another The Mikado.  But of course, that was not a realistic expectation.  So, yes, La Basoche was not a monster hit, but it was a success for a piece of its kind, especially for the early 1890s.  If someone wanted to read about this, beyond what is in the short Jacobs article, one would have to read Tony Joseph's excellent pamphlets on Richard D'Oyly Carte, or Robin Gordon-Powell's excellent introduction to his Ivanhoe score, or do some in-depth history about the Palace Theatre itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for all the information, and I understand you're impatient, when I don't understand what you mean right away. I have now read the Ivanhoe, Richard D'Oyly Carte, and Palace Theatre articles, which I had never read before. All nicely written and helpful. It seems Gänzl isn't totally wrong that Carte announced Elaine, but didn't follow through on it before he gave up. Gänzl IS a bit confusing (or confused), putting Ivanhoe and Elaine together. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, Elaine was one of the many operas that Carte had commissioned, but the composers did not deliver suitable works in time. Elaine alone could not have saved the opera house, and I think that mentioning it without mentioning all the others would be misleading. The only other work that Carte actually put into production was The Flying Dutchman, but that, too, was cancelled.  If you look at the schedule for Covent Garden, or the Metropolitan Opera House, or the Paris Opera, you will see that an opera house needs a repertory of quite a few works to successfully run an opera season.  Since Carte's ambition was to run his opera house on entirely *new English operas*, he had set the bar impossibly high for success.  It seems easy to see in hindsight, but coming from his unique experience at the Savoy Theatre, Carte must have thought that he was not subject to the laws of economics and couldn't fail.  Anyhow, I really do appreciate all your help with the article, and I do think a reception section is needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Date; Gondoliers
Hello Ssilvers, I noticed you have removed the exact date, 30 May 1908, for the production at the Théâtre de la Gaîté in Paris. I see no reason for removing this information. Suppose at a later point in time an editor decides to look for critical reaction to this production in contemporary newspapers or journals. Knowing the exact date will make it much easier to find it. I see little gain in removing the date, when the source provides it, and it is potentially useful information. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you must add trivia to the article, feel free to add the exact date back in. But mentioning what production came after the NY run is absolutely irrelevant.  I've added the word "limited" to show that the length of the run was planned in advance. The article already says that the NY critics found the opera's genre unfamiliar. That covers both of your arguments in your edit summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Ssilvers here: the exact date isn't needed. Mind you, mentioning The Gondoliers in this article seems irrelevant. – SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Schrocat and ssilver. Mentioning The Gondoliers here is not helpful in this article.  Also, I'm not sure about the style for the Opera Project, but throughout the Musicals project, they do not seem to include non-notable cast names for revivals, unless the revival is of particular importance.  I suggest that we remove them for all but the Paris, London and NY premieres.  UWS Guy (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Both the exact date of the production at the Théâtre de la Gaîté and the fact that in New York La Basoche was replaced by The Gondoliers (as well as the unlinked cast names which I added, yet another issue) can be found in Kurt Gänzl's The Encyclopedia of Musical Theatre, in his article on La Basoche, which is about the same length as this article in the Wikipedia. His encyclopedia article falls under WP:TERTIARY and can be used to establish due weight, i.e., what information s important and what is not important to include in an article. In my view, such a source is a more reliable guide to this question than our opinions as Wikipedia editors, especially when those opinions are based on no sources whatsoever, such as, the labelling of exact dates as "trivia" or the mentioning of a replacement work as "irrelevant" or a revival as "minor" or of a listed cast member as "non-notable". What sources have you cited to support these opinions? None. The existence or absence of a Wikipedia article is not a criterion of notability. In fact, using the Wikipedia for determining notability is actively discouraged. Notability depends on whether the topic is covered in a reliable, verifiable source "with significant coverage". Moreover, the facts added to an article, such as names and dates, do not fall under the notability guideline, which applies to complete articles. The information in the article depends on due weight. The additions I made were all supported by an encyclopedia article which can be used to establish that. We should rely on what we find in sources for determining these things, not our unsupported opinions as Wikipedia editors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to include in this article the production that succeeded it -- the run was a limited run from the outset (as opera productions usually are). There is also no reason to randomly insert the trivial detail of the exact opening date of the 1908 Théâtre de la Gaîté production, 18 years after the opera's initial run. The existence of these trivial details in even a secondary or tertiary source work absolutely does not equate to a reason to include them in this Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "limited" since this is original research unsupported by a cited source. And again, your opinions are your opinions (unsupported) and nothing more. They do not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is run by consensus. Right now the consensus here, in compliance with longstanding best practices for opera, operetta, and musical-theater articles, is to omit the following: exact dates on minor revivals or long-removed secondary runs, redlinked names on minor revivals, and productions which succeeded the work in question. If you object to the consensus here, your probable only way forward would be to post a public WP:RfC on these issues. (I do not think that would be successful.) I'd like to also mention that you would do extremely well to befriend, who is one of the very most experienced editors in existence on operetta, musical, and opera articles on Wikipedia. You could and would learn a tremendous amount from him, and avoid a lot of frustration and mistakes, as he is probably the best person to query about any issues on these matters -- and, as you see on this Talk page, is exceptionally generous with his knowledge and time. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against any of you, and you are entitled to your opinions. And I have very definitley gained an appreciation and respect for User:Ssilvers knowledge and abilities, but we need to remember we should rely on what we find in the sources, not our individual "knowledge" or "expertise", especially when it is not based on sources. When sources can reasonably be shown to have errors, as sometimes happens, then we need to make judgments about what information is most reliable. Ssilvers convinced me that some of Gänzl's information was confused, so I now do not have a problem with him having removed it. But I don't think that applies to much that I added here. In any case, I have no intention of getting into any kind of edit war over this, or for heaven's sake, an RfC, and I don't take it personally. Like you say, these decisions are made by consensus. But that doesn't always make the majority right. I had Gänzl's book, which has information completely relevant to this article, so I added it, and now I am done. It seems to me that (according to the Wikipedia guidelines) there was no reason to delete as much of his information from the article as has been deleted. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One further comment. It seems to me that some of these project "policies" or "practices" regarding names and dates, etc, do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines concerning what information should be or not be allowed in specific articles. These decisions should be based on what we find in the specific sources, not what appear to me to be nonspecific and rather arbitrary rules. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

[Left]] Being an editor of this encylopedia means that we must pick and choose the most important information from a variety of sources. You seem to be obsessed with Ganzl, but Ganzl is only one source and, as I mentioned to you before, the nature of Ganzl's work is that he had very limited time to understand the context of any one production. All other sources chose NOT to emphasize the production that followed La Basoche in New York (or any other place). WP:UNDUE requires that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So, WP:UNDUE requires exactly the opposite of what you state:  Since only one source mentions The Gondoliers, it is only one viewpoint among many sources. I have no doubt that it is correct, but it is not important, and clearly the WP:CONSENSUS here is to omit it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I happen to own Gänzl's book. Other editors did not seem to have it, so I added information from it. Also, you don't mention another similar article devoted to La Basoche, so I'm unsure which source you are referring to. If it's Traubner, he devotes two paragraphs to the work, and he includes quotes from some reviews that Gänzl does not cover. I would not argue that we have to omit that information just because Gänzl does not also cover it. Regarding the "limited" run of La Basoche, the NY Times "Theatre Gossip" item states that the troupe expected to have The Gondoliers ready within a month, so that doesn't sound like they expected to perform La Basoche for only two weeks. One can speculate that in their hands La Basoche was doing so poorly, they managed to get The Gondoliers on stage in two weeks. But even that only played another two weeks before they took it to Philadelphia. After that the NY Times seems to stop covering it. BTW, calling me "obsessed" goes beyond what's acceptable in my view. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do happen to get Gänzl's book, you will notice that he tends to follow the modern trend of giving more emphasis to the entire performance history of each work, often giving exact dates and the names of the leading actors. I find it's a pretty good book. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, one cannot speculate. That is WP:OR. One must put the most important information into articles. I don't think you have advanced a persuasive reason to mention the productions that followed this opera at any venue.  We give the length of the run, which speaks for itself. I also do not think that the non-notable names should be stated for the minor revivals, and some other editors have agreed with me. We are all just trying to improve the article. I think we can agree that Ganzl is *generally* a good source, but that does not mean that we must slavishly include every detail that he included. Wikipedia works by editorial WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I my gingerly add, it is the nature of survey books and dictionaries such as Gänzl that they will always cover things superficially. They are good for an introduction, but such books should be supplemented with a careful examine of the primary sources. - kosboot (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ssilvers here. There is no reason to name the production that followed the New York production of La Basoche in my opinion. Jack1956 (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. We obviously can agree to disagree. I do find it a bit paradoxical though, that we should chose to be more superficial than the survey work, concluding that what the expert decided was important to include is unimportant, while at the same time saying "such books should be supplemented with a careful examine of the primary sources", a process fraught with perils of interpretation and speculation better left to experts --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[left] But you are dead wrong. Ganzl is not an expert on La Basoche. He is surveying thousands of productions and cramming in the information that was EASIEST for him to find quickly. We, on the other hand, have the luxury to spread our research over months and years and to eventually find far more information that illuminates and explains the work, not just factoids that were readily available to Ganzl. For a good example of what is possible, see: Carmen or Thespis (opera). These articles rely on actual expert sources, not just surveys. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Robert, as I mentioned above, Ssilvers is the very best person on Wikipedia to ask what does and does not belong in a Wikipedia article on a work of operetta, musical theater, or opera. You would do very well to learn from him and ask questions of him, in any instance where questions arise on the matter. He is always glad to help, and generous with his time. I've worked in these subjects for over 8 years on Wikipedia, and Ssilvers is still my go-to person when I still have a question about what sort of information should be included and what shouldn't, because he is invariably correct on that score. I hope you will someday come to realize the same thing. Cheers, and happy editing, Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very kind words, Softlavender. The regular contributors at WP:WikiProject Opera know much more about opera than I do, but I know the guidelines and what has worked for high-quality articles, including Featured Articles, at WP:MUSICALS (see our Article Structure guidelines) and the Gilbert and Sullvian Project. So, I think I have a pretty good purchase on what content is most effective in musical theatre articles. Frankly, I have not done much research on La Basoche, and I mostly have looked at it from the point of view of its relationship to Richard D'Oyly Carte and Ivanhoe (opera).  But it is quite clear that this article is just a start.  There is much, much more to say about La Basoche.  We need an entire section describing its conception and composition and the choices that Messager and his collaborators made in its original production.  We also need sections analyzing the text and music of the opera.  I think that the descriptions of the revivals are not too bad, now, although we could use some more information about what the London reviewers actually said about the show, and a whole paragraph about the reception of the original production in Paris.  We need some qualitative information about the recordings -- which ones are well-regarded, if any? Anyhow, I think those are the top priorities for this article going forward, if anyone is a big enough Messager fan to take it on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)