Talk:The Pirates of Penzance/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 08:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. It seems to be quite substantial and likely to pass. Since you have waited over three months for a review, I hope you will be able to put up with my tedious and slow review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
  • Add (often referred to simply as The Pirates of Penzance), (commonly known as The Pirates of Penzance) or (more commonly known as The Pirates of Penzance).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really necessary? Subtitles are generally dropped. While Wikipedia does tend to note changes where words are dropped from the start of a title (Moll Flanders, On the Origin of Species) I can find few to no examples where cutting words from the end is explicitly marked, and many where it isn't The Pilgrim's Progress, Vanity Fair (novel), Candide. Only example I found where it was marked was The Hobbit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit out of my expertise reviewing this. I often name a bunch of alternate names in articles I write, but I can see this going either way. Most of your examples are not GA/FA articles. The first three examples at FA in this category are The Author's Farce, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards and Candide. I guess I'll acquiesce on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam Cuerden. It's not necessary, as there is no confusion; indeed, the article is so named. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pirates of Penzance
  • " failed in their efforts over the next decade to control the American performance copyrights over their operas" add ", including The Pirates of Penzance".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis
I just added the date in the previous section - same year, 1878. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Production and aftermath
User:Adam Cuerden, would you please check Bradley and Ainger on this point? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the citation is there. Ainger, pp. 181–82 and another citation; both follow the next sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
  • I don't review musicals that often. Is it standard to put all the numbers in parenthesis like this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much. It lets people link the plot with the music a bit more easily. That said, there are some bits where the synopsis works against this convention by saying things slightly out of order; [Notably, "When you had left our pirate fold" - the description before this number is mentioned include the revelations made in the dialogue just after it.] I'll make some tweaks tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the G&S operas follow the Opera project guidelines for article structure, NOT the musicals project guidelines. But in both cases, yes, the song titles go in parens. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Adam. Ian Bradley's The Complete Annotated Gilbert & Sullivan contains the standard text for G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musical numbers
  • Here long form names are presented that were shortened in various places above. This seems unusual. Even within this section, at the top short names are used and in the full list long names are used.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In opera conventions, songs are named after their opening lyrics. However, there's no firmly-fixed rule as to how much to quote of the lyric, leading to some oddities. I'll go through and extend as needed, but it's not particularly unusual to see a shorter name when you're mentioning something off-hand, and a longer one in a list like this. Of these,"All is prepared" is probably the most dangerous short form - it's unambiguous in the context of Pirates, but, in Gilbert and Sullivan as a whole, might well be mistaken for "All is prepared for sealing and for signing" - a non-recitative number from The Sorcerer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The musical numbers are listed in the standard scores and libretti and should be so listed in the list of musical numbers. I agree with Adam that these can be checked against Bradley. As Adam says, you can refer to a shortened version in the discussion above, unless there is ambiguity. I am sure that there is no ambiguity at all about "All is prepared." This is an article about Pirates, and we don't need to distinguish a song title from The Sorcerer, which is a far less well-known opera. Tony, which ones in particular concerned you? By the way, I appreciate your careful comments, as this is the time to get it right. In fact, I would have gone to peer review before GA, but, IMO, Adam jumped the gun, so here we are. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, well. My mistake is fixable, and I'll set to work. The problem with not having done much article work in a few years is that you need to do something to get back in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patter, counterpoint, and vocal writing
Hmm. I think the first reference to Shaw should be "Bernard Shaw" and the second, simply "Shaw", but I'm not certain. Contributor User:Tim riley has, in the past, expressed strong feelings on how to refer to Shaw - apparently the British never use "George". I have asked Tim to stop by and fix. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. See the title of the books listed as sources: "The Complete Music Criticism of Bernard Shaw". Shaw liked and used the initials GBS, but loathed the name George, and called himself simply "Bernard Shaw". I've made the necessary amendments. Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Versions
I've made a clarification. There was a single performance in Paignton, solely for the purpose of securing the British copyright, that is not worth mentioning in the LEAD. The two major original productions were in New York and then London. I think if you read it again, this should now be clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Production history
  • As a non-expert trying to understand which Broadway, West End, Off-Broadway and Off-West End production have occurred, I am at a loss. The next section does not help either.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that The Pirates of Penzance is British, and the British tradition is somewhat more performance. Also, Gilbert and Sullivan productions were dominated by the opera company created by D'Oyly Carte, Gilbert, and Sullivan primarily for said purpose, so that company's productions are going to dominate. We could be clearer, but, long story short, Broadway and West End are far less important here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is because, in 1879, people did not refer to Broadway and the West End the way we do today. The Theatre District was still in the process of moving to where it is now in NY. However, the premieres in NY's Fifth Avenue Theatre and London's Opera Comique (and revivals at the Savoy Theatre) were all at major theatres that you would certainly consider Broadway and West End theatres. I've made a few tweaks to clarify. We cite Hischak for the proposition there have been over 40 "major" revivals in NY, and the IBDB (which is incomplete) shows 26 productions on Broadway alone. Some Off-Broadway producers, such as the American Savoyards and The Light Opera of Manhattan produced Pirates every year over a period of decades, and NYGASP still produces it Off-Broadway every few years. The number of regional theatre productions in the US during the 20th century is in the hundreds, and, as noted in the article, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company played the opera continuously in repertory (sometimes with more than one company touring at the same time) for a century. There have been numerous professional productions in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany and elsewhere, a few of which are mentioned in the article. There have been thousands of amateur productions worldwide: at one point, there were more than 200 amateur G&S companies in each of the US and UK, all doing Pirates about once every four or five years, plus school productions too numerous to count. Since the 1960s, the number of amateur productions has gradually declined, but I'd estimate that Pirates is still produced at least several dozen times per year worldwide. We don't need to go into gruesome detail about all this, but as I've said to Adam, I think this section should be expanded a bit with more research, if he wishes to undertake it, focusing on major professional productions worldwide. One of the paragraphs needs at least one more cite, as I've marked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't the 26 broadway productions listed in the Production history/Historical casting sections? Why stop at 15 productions? Are they more major than the broadway productions?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - this is an important point to understand: As I said above, we should expand the Production History section to give some more color on some of the major productions. That is a research project that I am not in any position to do now. Bradley's 2005 book is a starting point for some of the more recent productions, but for other productions, research can be done if Adam wants to undertake it. For GA purposes, our discussion in the Production history section is probably adequate (but see below). The lists in the "historical casting" section are not lists of productions. They represent a cross-section of the most important casts mounted by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, which toured the opera (and played it in NY, London and other major cities), continuously for more than a century -- tens of thousands of performances. If you look at the talk-page discussions, peer review discussions and FAC discussions for H.M.S. Pinafore and Trial by Jury, there were discussions about this section when we brought those articles to FAC. As for the IBDB list of 26 Broadway productions, the fact that someone rented a Broadway theatre and presented a brief revival of Pirates does not make it a more important production than, say, the City Opera productions, or the NYGASP productions that have been regularly mounted it at City Center and, before that, at Symphony Space, and have toured every year for the past 40 years, or the productions by other professional repertory companies and opera companies. So a list of those 26 productions is not important (although *some* of them might be worth discussing in the article) - what is important is that the opera has been mounted repeatedly by professional opera companies and in major theatres on Broadway, in the West End and elsewhere within and outside of the English-speaking world, which I think we already say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly like to see a Historical casting table layout of Joseph Papp's Pirates and a select few other productions. I imagine of the other 26, some of them were Tony nominated. Similarly, there were probably a few Olivier nominated productions. Is this something reasonable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no other productions were Tony or Olivier-nominated at all (you can see this on the IBDB and Oliver websites), except that in 1953 the conductor of a 1952 production, Lehman Engel, got a Tony. The production was non-notable, running for only 8 performances in repertory with several other G&S shows. They were staged as part of a tour featuring Martyn Green after he left the D'Oyly Carte Company. Kind of like if you went to the theatre to see Robert Preston in a one-week limited run of Victor/Victoria, with a cast thrown together to back him. I have now added a sentence about that production, noting that Engel got the Tony. A conducting Tony for a one-week run is pretty silly, though. I don't think it would be eligible for a Tony award nowadays. As for Papp, we do already list the full cast and notable replacements. A table would give undue emphasis to this one production, which already has too much ink. An idea would be to spin off the Papp section as a separate article (then you could add a roles/cast table) and shorten it here, but I've always felt that that is a make-work project with no real value, because anyone interested in Papp's Pirates would be interested in Pirates generally, and the spun-off article would inevitably suffer from neglect as compared with the main article. For a stark example of this, see the horrible article on the film: The Pirates of Penzance (1983 film). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[left]One last thing to check before I let this one go. I don't know what constitutes a notable run. How many of the 26 broadway productions lasted for 100 or more performances? Off-Broadway? West End?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only three: (1) The original NY production, (2) the Papp production, (3) the 1926 production, produced and directed by Winthrop Ames (128 performances), which was one of three well-received G&S productions that he mounted in the 1920s. See Hurley, G. M. "Gilbert and Sullivan – and Winthrop Ames", The New Yorker, 6 June 1931, p. 70 - I'll add this info. to the Production history section. All the others were very brief (typical of opera productions), played in repertory with other G&S shows for a short season or part of a tour. I threw in mentions of American Savoyards, Light Opera of Manhattan and NYGASP, but this is all about NY. I hope that Adam is willing to dig up the refs. for other major US and worldwide performances (some of the more recent ones are discussed in Bradley's 2005 book). I understand that he is working on a show that is opening on Monday, so he probably needs a couple of weeks to get to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. So here is an area where I want to push, but don't want to drag this article into an unconventional area. I would like to see full documentation of performances that lasted for at least 100 performances. Can we add those on to the two table systems in the article or make separate tables for them as well as document them in the prose? Would this establish a wrong precedent. I know we don't see this at Hamlet or even Hamlet in performance, but shouldn't we?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All three NY productions with 100+ performances are now discussed in the right proportion, I think, with proper references. Not sure what you mean by "full" documentation. Tables would not be helpful (IMO) and, as I noted before, would give undue emphasis and an improper focus on New York, which is already over-represented in this article. Compare the productions sections of the FA articles on H.M.S. Pinafore and Trial by Jury. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well does this mean that there are non-NY productions of 100+ performances not discussed. If so, I'd be interested in London performances with 100+ performances not discussed. I continue to try to represent the readers who are as lazy as me and hope for tables of the 100+ performances like the two tables that are already in the article. Is there a reason not to produce information in that format?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of the professional productions that ran continuously for 100 performances are already mentioned in the article (unless there was one outside of the English-speaking world). Note that D'Oyly Carte played Pirates every year from 1893 to 1982 and did it usually once a week in repertory with other G&S shows, but sometimes twice a week or in more than one touring company (that's about 10,000 performances over those years). However, there have been various productions by major opera companies, regional theatre companies, foreign theatre companies and repertory companies that should be mentioned at least briefly before the article is nominated for FA (some of these are mentioned in Bradley 2005). But as I said a couple of times already, I don't have the time to research those right now, and since Adam has nominated this article now, I think it is up to him to do the research if we want to get this in before promotion to GA. I do not think it is necessary at the GA level, though. As I also said, he is working on a show that is starting tomorrow, so he may be out of pocket for a week or two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Papp's Pirates
Awards section
  • After reading the section above, I am now looking for an awards section to understand which productions were critically acclaimed. There is no such section. This article can not pass without some sort of summary or its awards for revivals. You would think that might be a subsection in the Critical reception section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were no theatre awards in 1879, when the original productions opened. Indeed, theatre awards have not existed for most of the production history of Pirates, and for many of them, only original productions are eligible. We mention the most important Tony and Drama Desk awards won by the Papp production here is a complete list of Broadway awards for the Papp production. There was a 1953 Tony for the conductor of a B'way production, but YAWN!! Over the years, productions all over the world have won various awards, but hunting them down is a waste of time. There should certainly not be a separate awards section. However, the Critical reception section, or the Productions section could be expanded with some critical comment on the most important 20th and 21st century productions. Remember, Tony, that in Britain, Canada, and South Africa, the EXCLUSIVE producer of G&S for a century was the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, and in NZ and Australia it was J.C. Williamson. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about tracking down every award. However, I would like a complete listing of Tony Awards. Common readers surely would be looking for that. You should probably accompany that enumeration with an explanation why the earliest of these is so far after the original. I would also like to know if any production have every won or been nominated for any Oliviers. I would appreciate listings further down the hierarchy of awards, but understand it may be a bit much. How about complete Tonys and Oliviers and a proper explanation. I am sitting here wondering if any best actor or what nots have been awarded to any productions. Also please note if any movie adaptations have been critically acclaimed by major awards.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Papp production was nominated for two Oliviers in London but did not win any. No other Oliviers. This is an article about a 135 year-old opera, not an article about a musical. The awards you are talking about are for a relatively recent production, and the fact that you are focusing on them shows exactly why a long list should NOT be here: it would distract from what's really important about this work. Look at how Awards are handled for Hamlet - lots of actors and productions of Hamlet have won awards. Just to compromise, I will add mentions of the actual acting and directing awards won for the Papp production. An explanation about why there were not theatre awards for works created before 1945 is not included in any article for older works. It's like explaining why the Model A did not have air bags. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about for the productions that have templates at the bottom of this article, you expand on any other awards won. If it won best play, mention how many wins and nominations it had and major acting/directing awards? Those appear to me to be notable enough productions to merit explanation of their critical acclaim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tony. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "templates". All "best play"-type awards are already mentioned. Again, when this show premiered, there were no theatre awards. The Critical reception section is the section that should describe the critical acclaim for the opera. You will not find any "best play" type awards for other operas, no matter how famous, by Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, etc. It's just irrelevant to the genre, even though light operas are sometimes played in houses that usually run modern musicals. Here is a telling point: If you read the standard reference books on G&S and Pirates (listed at the bottom of the article), they do not mention theatre awards. At all. The only one that makes even a passing reference to awards is Bradley's 2005 book, which is specifically about modern productions, and in the whole book, he gives less ink and importance to awards than we already do in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Major-General's Song
We do, in the Musical analysis section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Film and television
Other references
84 years divided by 4 = 21. So, in 1940, the NY Times is congratulating Fredric on his 21st birthday. Is that what you were asking? If not, please read the Act II plot summary and clarify your question. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah It only needs to be 63 years after the the earlier 21st birthday.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
Images
Good thought. I killed the second one, but I really think we need an illustration for the Papp version, and there aren't any free images of that, AFAIK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added punctuation to the second one, but the first one has an exclamation point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this on Hold. There seems to be active interest in addressing the concerns, so I am quite certain that we can get everything resolved within 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your questions and comments, Tony. I leave the referencing to AC, since he nominated this article for GA review. Generally, I think the article needs a little expansion in the Original Production section (although that could be left for post-GA). Andrew Crowther's new book might be able to add detail here, as well as Stedman and Ainger. In the Genesis section, we should be very precise about what is known, and what is not known, about Sullivan leaving materials behind. It would be very good if we could get Marc Shepherd's input on this. The productions section (as discussed above) and critical reception sections could be filled out more, but again, they are probably adequate for GA. Also, compare the "Analysis" section in Pinafore for some ideas about textual and musical analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you know I am just helping out in this area with little expertise. I will wait until you think it is satisfactory to pass this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. A lot of my general comments in the paragraph above are things that need to be done before any FA nomination. I think your comments will get us to the GA level, if Adam is willing to work on the missing refs and slightly expand the productions section and critical reception sections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. keep fighting me if I am dragging the article in a wrong direction.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I think you know me well enough to guarantee that I will! :p Seriously, though, it will help you to read the FAC discussions and talk page discussions for H.M.S. Pinafore (1878), which is an FA article about the Gilbert and Sullivan opera that is very similar to Pirates (1879) historically and structurally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been edited since October 29 and I don't believe any edits that address my concerns have been made since the 26th. What is going on here?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, where are you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Sorcerer leads rather hard into Concert season this year. Still, Hush Thee My Babie is awesome, as is The Long Day Closes. Should have time by Tuesday; for now, back to sleep. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you meant Tuesday the 12th, but in case you meant the 19th, I will wait until then to fail the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more work today, but we need Adam to fill in some refs. Adam? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adam has not edited the article since October 22. I am tempted to fail this now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, but despite the progress made, it seems that there is more to do to address my concerns. After almost 5 weeks with no response, from the nominator, I am FAILing this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No apology necessary; you have been more than patient. Adam nominated and then abandoned this article as he has done with other articles in the past. Is there any way that one can withdraw nominations that are made prematurely by other editors? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, when the nomination finally went through, it was at the worst possible month for me to be able to do anything: Between an opera, a major concert, and my father's visit, Wikipedia was the last thing I could concentrate on. I'll see about renominating when things clear up in the new year. Unfortunately, with the very, very long delay time on GAs, there's no way to guarantee anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden: For heaven's sake PLEASE do NOT renominate this or any other G&S articles until AFTER you have done the work to bring the article up to the required standard and given Tim and me (and others) a chance to peer review. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just shut up, please. You've so far managed to belittle me excessively for having done the horrible crime of not being free three months after I knew I had a relative free period for a while. Just drop it, I do not wish to have any more disparagement of my character being thrown around willy-nilly; I'd rather we end this before words are said that I will likely regret. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirates_of_Penzance/GA1&oldid=584922837"