Talk:Blithe Spirit (play)

Infobox

I removed the infobox. There are only four FA-class plays in Wikipedia, and none of them have an infobox. Apparently the theatre project, like the Opera project, considers infoboxes distracting, repetitive and unnecessary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so say all of us! - Tim riley (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Am I alone in thinking that it lacks balance to have "Blithe Spirit" as the disambiguation page? I believe the average user would expect to go straight to the page on the original play. The made-for-television version and even Lean's film are much less in demand by users. Taking a random month (December last) the play had 3,659 hits; the film 1,194 and the TV version 301. I suggest the play page be renamed "Blithe Spirit" with the existing links to the other two preserved. The disambiguation page could then be done away with. Thoughts, please? - Tim riley (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not alone. I think the play is the

WP:primary topic. The play was written first and has been far more successful than the film. I would support the move you propose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Inconsistency noted, so which is it?

It says, "The Broadway premiere took place ... In the cast were ... and Jacqueline Clarke as Edith." Then it says, "Roles and original cast... Edith, a maid – Ruth Reeves." So which is it? Clarke or Reeves? Besides, why is there even a section on 'roles and original cast' since that's already in the article? The section is redundant. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The original cast, which is listed in full, is the West End cast. Clarke was in the Broadway cast, so you simply misread it. Nevertheless, to clarify, I have removed the non-notable names and added text above the full cast list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK tour?

An editor added a mention of a UK tour of the 2011 production but did not include a source. Does anyone have a

WP:Reliable source describing this tour? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Play/film

Hi. I've just looked at this article for the first time, having watched the David Lean film last night, and the photograph of the leading characters shows different actors than those credited underneath. John.Whythe (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the play, not the film. There is a separate article about the film. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Archers

copied from Talk:Paul Barlow

Hi Paul. I clarified that the broadcast is part of an episode of The Archers. Please note that (1) the ref that you added was already in the article; (2) the ref does not support the statement that more than one episode of The Archers involves Lynda Snell organising a Christmas production of the play; and (3) even if you can find a reference that states that more than one episode of "The Archers" was involved, those episodes would be merely pop culture references to the play, and therefore, arguably "trivia". Please do not edit war! Instead, use the Talk page to explain if you think that more needs to be said than that the one episode of the series included a broadcast of an adaptation of the play, and give a reference that verifies if any other episodes discuss the play, and in what way it was discussed in each such episode. If a substantial part of another episode of The Archers was devoted to the organisation of the performance of Blithe Spirit, I would agree that it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, as long as the reference shows clearly that this was the case. All the best, and happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a strange idea of what "edit warring" is. Reverting once is not edit warring. Please do not make inappropriate accusations, Secondly, the citation I added was not in the article, though a citation to the BBC website was, this was to a different page within it. If you had troubled to read the first reverter's edit summary you would have seen that he claimed that the edit was not supported by the existing citation (even though the information is all within the BBC website). Hence the fact that I added a separate cite to the relevant page within it. As for trivia, again you misunderstand. The term "trivia" typically refers to passing, trivial mentions within popular culture (e.g. "Blithe Spirit" was mentioned in an episode of Friends, when Joey auditions for a role.." etc). In this case the situation is very very different. Firstly, The Archers is the longest running soap opera in the world. Of course that does not in itself make it culturally important, but it has had a long history of self-reflexive commentary on acting and dramatic convention, and its target demographic is people who are literature-history literate. What happened this year was that the standard narrative (involving the character "Lynda Snell" creating an amateur production of some play at Christmas) was extended over many weeks, culminating in her production of Blithe Spirit, which was dramatised within the soap opera. Her "fictional" production was then broadcast separately as an independent radio version of the play, with the actors credited as both the "real" actors and also the fictional "actors" - the characters they play in the soap opera. The performance was unique because the actors were playing their characters playing the roles.

Ironically the mere fact that there was a radio production of the play might be said to be "trivia" (so what? there was production of Antony and Cleopatra on BBC radio a few days ago. It's not worth listing all productions of every classic play on Wikipedia). What made this non-trivial was the long-prepared tie-in to The Archers, and the connection of the play itself to the target demographic of The Archers, which has always drawn on dramatic conventions derived from Coward himself, including the tradition of characters who are themselves actors being exaggeratedly theatrical in "real" life.

Of course much of what I am saying here constitutes OR, but that's unimportant, because that's not what was added to the article. What I objected to was the deeply obtuse and frankly ignorant assertion that merely listing a production is fine, but that indicating what made it worth mentioning in a wider cultural context is "trivia". Paul B (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last edits to the article clarify that the BBC Radio 4 adaptation of the play is part of an episode of The Archers. I disagree with some of Paul Barlow's other assertions above, but as they do not address the article's content, I need not address them. In particular, they do not state what, if any, further changes to the article are proposed, and they do not cite anything. With respect to the edit that Mr. Barlow made to the article, it is quite clear that it added a reference that simply duplicated the immediately preceding reference already cited in the article, except that it omitted some essential information that is required by

WP:RSs that clearly describe what additional episodes were devoted to the preparation of the play. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that would be most undesirable. Of possible interest at the Archers article, for those who like that sort of thing, but absurdly irrelevant here. The text as Ssilvers left it is, to my mind, more than ample coverage. Tim riley talk 11:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim Riley above, the edit by Ssilvers covers what is required perfectly adequately. Jack1956 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re the removal of the statement that the adaptation was "by Sean O'Connor", this was meant in the sense that he was the adapter, not the producer, and this is indeed mentioned in the source: "Adapted and directed by Sean O'Connor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.193.41 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now added, although I don't know what source you are looking at. This one and this one confirm it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blithe Spirit (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/70867.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081107070040/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/123005.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/123005.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107141019/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/123437.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/123437.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]