Talk:Pantomime/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Is this article about pantomine or mainly British pantomime?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The subject has come up again, through the comments of several users, as to whether or not the article name would imply a broad and thorough treatment of the phenomenon of pantomime as known internationally, and whether or not the article now is well balanced or mainly favors of what is called pantomime in Britain. The discussion has a tendency to turn sarcastic, contentious and personal, and that, plus the lack of enough neutral opnions to fix a good consensus, is what could be remedied through this RfC. 22:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (added by User:SergeWoodzing).

What makes you think this complete waste of time is of a benefit to anyone else other than yourself? Cassianto^Talk 23:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I made him/her think so, and I have given good reasons. You are talking here about an exclusion of a subject from Wikipedia because you wish to give undue weight to one particular phase of pantomime. That's not on, any more than if the article on opera began "Opera is a music drama written by Gilbert and Sullivan" and then way down the page "(it was also written by some other guys we don't care about)". Redheylin (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations for winning my "most stupid idea of the week" award, naming the authors within a title, but being incredibly careful not to miss anyone out for the fear of making those named sound better and more important than those who aren't. I dread to think how long the title would be for this if we left it up to you! Cassianto^Talk 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Can you please clarify what you're requesting comment on? What this article is about? What this article should be about? Whether it should be moved to British pantomime? Joe Roe (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! all three need to be addressed and discussed in a civil manner.

1. Is the article about pantomime as most people probably would perceive its title and expect to find it?
2. Should the article be about pantomime as most people probably would perceive its title and expect to find it?
3. Can a broader consensus than before be arrived at now for a move to British pantomime or Panto (Britain)

(And I do not believe I have mentioned anyone in regard to less-than-civil language - based on some of the previous wording, I'm asking us all to behave, me included.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Probably 2. Probably 3. Maybe, if it can be demonstrated that the current article fails on point 1 and 2. --Topperfalkon (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Cassianto: Please have a look at how this RfC is currently listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics and try to come up with a more suitable question that others who follow the RfC boards will understand. The bot copies everything after the {{rfc}} template up to and including the next signature following. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  Hi Redrose64, Cassianto isn't the one who filed the RfC: that was a different editor. (And they need to be reminded about it being neutrally worded and to avoid making disparaging comments about other editors). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  Redrose64, FYI. Cassianto^Talk 23:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  It might not have been Cassianto who filed the RfC, but it is their signature that appears on the RfC listings immediately after the question "What makes you think this complete waste of time is of a benefit to anyone else other than yourself?" If that is not the question being asked of this RfC (see WP:WRFC), it needs to be clarified or replaced with the actual question. It's been 23 hours since I asked; if it's not been sorted by, say, 10:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (just under 25 hours from now), I might consider this an invalid RfC and delist it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Crack on and cancel it. This is a bloody pointless waste of time anyway. The fault does not sit with me but instead with the buffoon who failed to list it correctly in the first place. Cassianto^Talk 09:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Cassianto, can you please moderate your tone towards the WP:CIVIL? I haven't had time to review the history of this discussion here, so maybe it very much is a "waste of your time" (and that of others), but then your are not compelled to comment at all, if you don't want to be involved in the discussion. However, if you do want to participate, calling people idiotic and buffoonish is just not an acceptable way to go about discussing a content matter, and it seems as if this is something you've been reminded of repeatedly this last year, to look at your block log. Either restrict your comments to policy and content, and avoid characterizing the intelligence of your "opposition" as the main thrust of your comments, or don't participate at all, please. Argue the point, not the editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  No. And please don't refer to my block log. It has nothing to do with you or this discussion. Cassianto^Talk 10:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  "Argue the point, not the editor"... unless you want to be so irrelevant as to point to someone else's block to smear them... I'd take a leaf from your own book, Snowrise. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  I have delisted this RfC, since the question listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics remains unacceptable. If you want it listing at that page, or indeed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture, please use a non-abusive (preferably neutrally-worded) question that is in accordance with WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment the article SHOULD BE about the whole history of the form(s), in historical sequence, which are the subject of study and have ency value. Currently it is much as Redheylin describes it above btw G+S wrote operetta, but point well made. If 'panto' needs it own article free of any constraints of the older uses so be it. But this is a fatally flawed RfC which does not ask a clear question or characterise the problem clearly. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete here. The extant article should encompass the whole topic, not just one variant of the art. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I hesitate to comment on an RfC that does not appear to follow the guidelines at WP:RFC, but ... the article is fine as is. As stated already, those who come to this page are using the word in the sense described by the article. Google search "pantomine" and at the bottom of the page Google lists under "Searches related to pantomime": pantomime toronto, pantomime vancouver, pantomime videos, pantomime examples, pantomime ideas, pantomime pronunciation, pantomime 2015, pantomime scripts. Note the absence of "Roman pantomime", "dumb pantomime", "classical pantomime" etc. --Cornellier (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• It's probably fine as-is. An argument can be made that Mime is actually the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title Pantomime in English as a whole, but I think that's very debatable, and no one has made a source-based case that this is true, so the status quo should remain. This article is about a Vaudeville-like, mixed-format, and holiday-associated form of theatre, as it originated in England. Miming-related topics should not be jammed into this. The topics are distinct, and the disambiguation hatnote is sufficient. If we do determine that miming is the primary topic for this word, then the present article should be at British pantomime (per WP:NATURALDIS, and per WP:CONSISTENCY with American pantomime). We would not use the nickname "panto" in the title (fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE for a substantial percentage of English speakers). Now, if there are even more distinct other forms of pantomime, we should probably have a WP:CONCEPTDAB page at the base title, or move Pantomime (disambiguation) to Pantomime. Since there are presently just articles on original/British and American forms (when it comes to "pantomime" in anything like this sense), we would not use a CONCEPTDAB page, per WP:TWODABS; hatnotes are sufficient, and I've ensured they're done right. Honestly, the American pantomime article could probably merge into the present one as a section, unless the RS consistently treat them as separate theatrical genres; right now this looks a bit like having an article on burlesque and a separate article on Canadian burlesque for no real reason, but maybe the distinction is drawn more clearly than it seems to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish, I agree that American pantomime should be merged into this article. American pantomimes are just pantomimes that happen to be performed in the US (including topical local jokes, as pantomimes often do). See the Talk page at American pantomime. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• I believe SMcCandlish aptly sums it up. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Summoned neutrally by SergeWoodzing. Agree with SmcCandlish. There is a difference between mime and pantomime, even though they share common etymology and history. today WP:COMMONNAME for both concepts is distinguished enough that each can be their own primary topic, with appropriate disambiguation pages and links at the top of the article to get people where they need to go. American and British pantomime should probalby be merged, with the American bit being just a small sub-section of the main topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Step #1 Ban Cassianto for unprofessional, impolite tone. Step #2 I see no good reason why mine, pantomime, British pantomime, American pantomime should not be included in a single Wikipedia article on mime and pantomime. As is noted ^ above ^ the phenomena share attributes. Remember that people do actual research using Wikipedia, and bringing up a single page which covers the spectrum of what they are researching is of far more benefit to researchers than paging through multiple links they must follow. The ability to print and plagiarize from a single page :) is far more valuable to High School and other students than searching links covering what are in effect variants of the same topic. Damotclese (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  ...and who exactly are you? If you think I've been "unprofessional [and] impolite" so far then you have clearly led a very sheltered life. Now stick to the matter in hand and stop trying to pick fights. In fact, if you don't like me, then why don't you practice what you preach? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Yes, the most common use of the word is the modern seasonal entertainment, but anyone with an interest/knowledge in the history of theatre would know that the term is older. The most common use of 'comedy' is 'that funny show on the tv', but would we as an encyclopedia fail to inform that comedy has a longer, more complex history (often nothing to do with being funny)? Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• That's probably why there is a history section at the start of the article... – SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The question, unfortunately, is unclear. That being said, the topic is clearly defined in the lede and hatnote as British Pantomime, with appropriate links to American Pantomime and mime in general. I am not seeing the fuss; the article defines what it is and links to other forms. Readers who actually read the lede will get to where they want to go, if this is not what they want. How much explanation is necessary for them? Certainly we would not want the average Wikipedia consumer to read through the entire article to find the little it that they want - which is exactly what would happen if we tried to merge the other pages here. Keep them clean, concise, and well-defined as they are now. Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Of course, ultimately we need to go by the sourcing, but as someone with a life history in both nations and a foot in each culture, I can attest that the primary usage is drastically different between contemporary British and American English; "panto" and "pantomime" invariably brings to mind the seasonal variety of entertainment in Britain, where "mime" and "pantomime" are used almost exclusively in the the States to refer to street performance or the general behaviour of aping something. I should be very surprised indeed if volumes of reliable sources of every possible acceptable medium were not readily available on both varieties (and their common roots and other derivatives). That makes arguing the WP:WEIGHT issues a little difficult, because each "side" (to the extent people want to take sides on this, of all inconsequential issues, which seems just plain silly), has a functionally inexhaustible arsenal of sourcing to argue this point over, if they just want to be tendentious.

So some editorial discretion is in order here, and I don't say that often, preferring to cleave close to a strict reading of community consensus, whenever possible. Perhaps a straw pole is in order (since I agree with others above that this RfC was poorly authored and formatted): those most familiar with the article could propose rough percentages of how much coverage each meaning (historical, seasonal. performative, utilitarian) should get and the rest of us can investigate the sourcing and !vote. Seems as good a way as any to move this forward.

I can also see potentially !voting to move the seasonal topic to it's own article under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and maintaining an overview article in this namespace; there's an argument to be made that this would be most consistent with WP:COMMONNAME, the controlling guideline; WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMADIS speak particularly to the issues here. I'd like to hear more proposals on this and less name-calling. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• The name is fine as is. The disambiguation page directs people to the correct articles. The topic of silent "mime" is currently embodied, more or less, in the not-very-good article Mime artist, and any confusion is allayed by the hatnote here. I believe that the best process here is to leave this article named as it is, and greatly improving the "Mime artist" article, perhaps renaming it "Mime". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• British pantomime could work here as a sub-article of Pantomime in general. This article is already set up for British pantomime. It is still an active tradition in Britain and much more could be written on the topic. The Universities still have annual contests and I believe Eddie Izzard got his start as representing his Uni at one of these street festivals. A general article on Pantomime would still be relevant, of course. But I see nothing wrong with having one exclusively on British pantomime. As an aside, I cannot believe the level of incivility over this. Kudos to those who are attempting to keep this civil and in the best interests of the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I share this general opinion as well, including on the behavior here - the article here, as is, should be moved to 'British pantomime' and this article serve as a general overview/launching pad to the sub types. --TKK! bark with me! 18:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Tainted Discussion

I'm rather shocked at some blatant WP:canvassing going on by SergeWoodzing. He has recently asked for "help" from 40 of his friends. At least five of those canvassed (‎SW3 5DL, Topperfalkon, Snow rise, Tituko and Damotclese) have come here to support his position already. This is a disgraceful approach to take, and their comments should be disregarded. – SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the irony in having my "behaviour" pointed out by the likes of Snow Rise and others who themselves, are brazenly aiding and abetting someone who is openly flouting the rules. Cassianto^Talk 05:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've followed instructions here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You have WP:CANVASSED opinions from individuals: that is improper (and, despite your edit summary, not a personal attack). Leaving neutrally worded notes on the talk pages of various projects is acceptable, but not asking for help from your friends, which is poor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I responded to the request because it does not seem to in any way violate WP:CANVAS. SergeWoodzing sent the message to everyone on a certain RfC list. I for one have never seen his name on the project before, that I can recall. Again, I cannot speak for others, but presuming that the other users he reached out to were neither A) people who had already registered an opinion in this topic area that he was attempting to exploit, or B) people he expected to back him (neither of which seems to be the case here), then it's not canvassing. The first line of that policy reads: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

The only principle of that policy that seems to have been violated by his approach is the "spamming" restriction; that behaviour is potentially disruptive and perhaps warranting some attention, but A) he's arguably covered there by the fact that he did follow the feedback request guidelines and B), if all he did was spam, he might have over-publicized, but he wasn't !votestacking. Which seems to be the kind of canvassing you are suggesting. Do you have any proof that SergeWoodzing has strategically selected only people he expects to be allies? If so, what pattern do you see that supports this assertion? Because if all he did was select everyone on that list who was active in the last 10 months, that seems to satisfy the neutrality requirement for manual notifications using the RfC lists. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason we have the Feedback Request Service is precisely to avoid such problems, as the instructions (which he claims to have followed) make perfectly clear. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, looking at his comment above, he says that he took his direction from this guideline, which does say he can post directly to user talk pages in addition to community spaces, provided he selects those users randomly/neutrally. Now, we might make the argument that those policies need to be reworked to be more consistent with one-another in the particulars, but it seems that he can make an argument for having acted in good faith accordance with the one he read. Anyway, again, if he just chose every user on the list who had been active in the last ten months, he wasn't canvasing/stacking the vote; he was just over-aggressively publicizing using that list. As one of the editors "spammed" by his effort, I can say that I have no issue with it; those bots have never informed me of nearly as many discussions as I am signed up to receive in a month, so, if someone wants to manually recruit my opinion, and they aren't someone I know or someone basing that decision on how I !voted in another discussion, I'm fine with it, and don't see any bad-faith intent. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your link isn't a guideline, although it does contain one piece of advice that is at odds with the actual instructions. The FRS advice should probably be stricken, as it will lead—as it has in this case—to overly-aggressive canvassing and a tainted discussion when the FBS is designed to avoid that problem. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I use "guideline" here in the broad sense, though I'd argue, being an instruction on a process page, it has the effect of policy, at least insofar as it reflects community consensus--nonetheless, I agree that it is at least worth discussing the possibility of making those two pages consistent in the guidance they give. If you raise the issue on the talk page, I would not object to a ping, because, while I'm not sure whether I think talk page postings are a good idea in that context or not, I do believe those instructions should be consistent--so we should settle on one definitive list of options.

In any event, as regards SergeWoodzing's activities, he can't be blamed for the instructions placed on that page. I think he was arguably overzealous in reaching out in that way, but I see no evidence that he canvassed in the traditional sense (i.e. chose the users he messaged in a non-neutral manner so as to sway the outcome of the discussion). He just seems to have really wanted more eyes on this issue, and wasn't satisfied with what the bots were generating. And frankly, that's understandable, on both points; the feedback system has gotten really buggy and sometimes there aren't enough responses to form a decent consensus. Nonetheless, I would advise him next time to first try to use central community discussion spaces (WP:VP, WP:CD, WP:NPOVN, ect.) as a simpler way to drum up additional perspectives. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Belated advice now, once you've been caught out. Stable door/ horse / bolted. Cassianto^Talk 10:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Caught out" for what exactly, Cassianto? You do realize that on this project it is a WP:personal attack to suggest bad-faith activity of another user without furnishing proof, correct? The messages that SergeWoodzing used to ask others to come here are still on our talk pages. There are plenty of tools to allow you to see if Serge and the rest of us have previously interacted on the project. For my part, I can say he and I haven't, so stop making accusations you know you cannot back up. It won't obfuscate the issue, nor invalidate opinions you don't like. WP:CANVASSING (please actually read that policy before asserting again that it has been violated) pertains to when someone seeks the involvement of people they have reason to believe will agree with them. Serge posted to everyone on that RfC list who is active; we responded and brought our good-faith opinions on the matter at hand. You really need to stop treating all of those opinions with hostility wherever you don't agree with them. And you really, really need to stop making unsupportable accusations. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Caught out" for canvassing, and yes, I use the term appropriately. He has acted in a sub-standard manner in this matter by aggressively plastering notices on 40 talk pages without even giving the bot time to do its work: that is below-par behaviour, whatever you may think. (I'd also say that your statement "being an instruction on a process page, it has the effect of policy" is deeply misguided as to what a policy actually is). - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop referencing civility guidelines. I don't much care for the policy when it comes to engaging with people such as yourself. Treat those how you yourself would expect to be treated is how I operate. And if I'd have behaved like you during this interaction then I would expect to be treated like a complete fool. Cassianto^Talk 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing might not have been satisfied with what the bots were generating, but Legobot (talk · contribs) sent out messages like this (which is about as neutral as you can get) to a total of nine user talk pages: seven on 24 April and two on 25 April. Each of these linked back to either this (24 April) or to this (25 April) which is, to me, highly unsatisfactory, particularly when considered in connection with what had been added to RfC listings (incidentally, it was that edit showing on my watchlist that first brought me here). Legobot stopped sending those messages to User talk: pages after I did this with this effect. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(I stopped counting after 11 indent colons so am starting my reply here at the left margin. If you don't like it - tough.) I am rarely active here any more but I received a seemingly random invitation from the RfC list some time ago. I apologize for taking so long to respond but I have a business to run and a life to tend to. I have never participated in any discussions about literature or drama that I can recall but figured, what the heck, I'll see what's going on. My first impression is that "Holy cow! people are making much ado about nothing!" If the title is about a main genre, that is what the article should discuss. If there are significant sub-genres, even derivative or "ancestral" genres, address them within the article, and if there is significant content to discuss, create daughter articles. What is the big deal? I have learned the hard way in Wikipedia, that sometimes, I (We) just need to take a deep breath, try to look at the big picture, and step away for a bit. There are many times in the past that I wish I had taken my own advice. I wish everyone luck, be chill and I'll try to check in again soon. Veriss (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 2016 changes

This was added, but it is not clear what it means. Please revise: "By making such a transistion, the staged movement of pantomime morphed itself into a more humanistic expression allowing the artform to vary from each individual performer." Citing Chaffee and Crick, p. 342 Please note that this article should use British spelling, such as "stylised". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Cornelier, see WP:CITESHORT. You put the long form of the book citation at the bottom, then you just need to cite the author name, page number, and if there are multiple books by the same author cited, also the year. This is the way it's done in nearly every FA on Wikipedia. As for refbloat, I disagree with deleting refs unless you can show clearly that each particular deleted ref does not help verify all facts mentioned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ssivers, see WP:READER and WP:CITEVAR. "It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia". WP:CITESHORT makes WP better for editors and worse for readers. Try it: on a portable device, tap the very first reference in the article and up pops "Lawner, p. 16". As opposed to regular references used in the rest of Wikipedia which display the full ref. As for it being used in FAs, not all traditions are worth keeping. The references section of today's FA Richard_Dannatt is awful. The Sources section of Pantomime is also ambiguous since it includes both works that are cited and those that are not, without differentiating the two. Please also see WP:REFBLOAT, in the article the phrase "Prior to about 1870, many other stories were made into pantomimes" does not need two references. That's just clutter. --Cornellier (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with what you have written above, and believe that you have misunderstood WP:REFBLOAT. Two references for an assertion about "many" things is very certainly *not* too many. WP:CITESHORT reflects a very standard and neat citation format that is user friendly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing unused sources. I don't see the other remarks made above being duly addressed. --Cornellier (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference for Panto in Australia

This was uncited for years - the reference we inserted is "only" a newspaper article rather that an academic source - but might do, if we can't find a better one? - to quote:

• Pantomime has roots stretching back to the Middle Ages and beyond, but the form we see today is a 19th-century invention. As in England, pantomimes were hugely popular in Australia before World War I, though the coming of movies quickly undermined their mass appeal. Producers countered with ever more lavish shows featuring novelty acts and ballet sequences. As a result, they became financially risky and the pantomime as popular entertainment died a slow death here.

This fits quite well with the content - or do we need a specific reference that the "slow death" stretched over a decade or two, into the middle of the last century? Just a little confused about what is required to end the "cn" campaign here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems like a good enough ref. to cover the gist of the statement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Oh no it isn't"

Forgive me if I have this all wrong (I'm in the U.S. and I've never seen a real panto)...but I thought it was the villain who got contradicted by the audience (and comic lead) in the "oh no it isn't" / "oh yes it is" business. The article states that the comic lead gets contradicted by the audience, rather than being allied with them against the villain. Is that a mistake? Jcejhay (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Can you find an article about it, or that explains it? See WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried! I learned that while "oh no it isn't" comes up in the titles of lots of panto-releated articles (and video trailers), finding an actual analysis (or even simply a clip of panto performers doing that particular shtick) seemed to be more than Google was worth. Jcejhay (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

My hope was that in the UK, the way the "oh no it isn't" business works would be common enough knowledge that a correction to the article (if it needs correction) could happen without too much worry about a citation. Jcejhay (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strong rules against WP:OR. We need to find an article, review or other published source that explains the business. Generally speaking, articles improve when these rules are enforced more strictly. See the criteria for WP:FA and even WP:GA articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I understand all this, of course. But the point is Wikipedia is also full of things that are so thoroughly recognized as indisputable (but often difficult to cite, per se) general knowledge that no reasonable editor would insist that they required citations. (I know, I know, what other articles do isn't a valid precedent...) If someone who knew more about panto than I do had simply corrected the information that I suspect is erroneous, I doubt you or anyone else would have questioned it or flagged it as "citation neeed"--because millions of people in the UK would recognize it as uncontested common knowledge. It's only because I was cautious enough to go with "talk" that we're having to have this unnecessarily remedial conversation. I posted here simply in the hope that someone conversant in panto would look at the passage in question and, if it was clearly wrong, just revise it so that it was right. I wasn't looking for a tutorial in basic research and citation practices. Jcejhay (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you that I would have deleted it and directed the person to the Talk page. I have long been arguing that this article needs more citations, not more unreferenced material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, then in that case you should probably delete the version that's currently in the article. I see that the table as a whole has a citation, but searching the source in Google Books shows no evidence that the specific assertion (the one I'm questioning, about the comic lead, rather than the villain, arguing with the audience) is covered therein. Or, of course, you could do further research yourself, and maybe you'll turn up something my efforts did not. Jcejhay (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless my memory is playing tricks this "interactive" nonsense is by no means confined to any one particular character - I have fond memories of arguing (in unison with the rest of the audience) with the "Dame" character on very similar lines to this. Of course it is always nice to find a good citation - but allowing an article, even one as undercited as this one, to be mauled by someone making no secret of the fact that he has no real knowledge of the subject at all seems somewhat sad. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I did not change a word of the article but only threw out a query for better-qualified people to investigate, that seems especially uncalled for. Your gratuitous insults aside, however, I'm genuinely glad to see that your relative expertise might help in revising the section in question for clarity and accuracy. I hope you will take a moment to do so. Jcejhay (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The material removed is not essential in those tables. Later, it is noted that the audience calls out the phrase. I think the change is a good one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jcejhay - sorry - I did go a off a bit half-cocked there - but no "insult" (either gratuitous or well earned) was intended. @Ssilvers - likewise - I failed to realise that you had in this case shifted rather than deleted information, and that we even had a "good' cite. Put it down to extreme old age and the lateness of the hour. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Soundofmusicals. And thank you for improving the article, @Ssilvers. -- Jcejhay (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Andorra "ex-pats"?

Is all this really in the cited source? Took a quick look & found nothing. A page nmber would help. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic sentence/paragraph defines the specific subject

This article is actually about the subject described in the first sentence/paragraph (the traditional English children's treat in the form of a fairy tale musical). Extraneous matter about any of the quite different subjects that have been described as "pantomimes", how ever well referenced, can only cause confusion. In fact there may very well be a case for another article on the subject of mime/pantomime in Greco/Roman culture! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)