The Importance of Being Earnest is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 24, 2024.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2010 Good article nominee Listed September 16, 2024 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hertfordshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire

I am surprised at a rather big omission in the section covering the genesis of the work. The present text faithfully reports what the cited source says, but the source unaccountably omits important information that is actually provided elsewhere in the same book. In brief, Wilde wrote The Importance with Charles Wyndham in mind, and the latter had accepted the play for production when George Alexander had a sudden crisis with the failure of Guy Domville leaving him in desperate need of a successor to keep his theatre open. Wyndham generously responded to Alexander's SOS and waived his contractual rights in order to let Alexander stage the piece. It was particularly generous of Wyndham, as the character of John Worthing was to some extent modelled on his stage persona. See Raby on p. 143 of the Cambridge Companion, the footnote on pp. 418–419 of Hart-Davis's 1962 edition of Oscar's letters and the ODNB. I disapprove of barging in at Good Articles or FAs, so am raising the point here as a start. Tim riley talk 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thanks for your research on this. IMO it belongs in the article. I'm not sure that this talk page is on many active editors watchlist anymore so if, after a day or so, you don't get other input please feel free to add it. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I've also removed some material cited to Ellmann 1988, p. 397 which simply doesn't appear there. Tim riley talk 10:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding the Standard Ebooks link to the book, but it was reverted by @Tim riley:; I assumed this was because it was cluttering up the links section, so I tried doing so while also removing the Project Gutenberg link, and then it was reverted by @MarnetteD:. Is there a reason to not include a Standard Ebooks link? They're included throughout WP on a number of other public domain books, it's a fully CC0 project, and the text itself is based on the Gutenberg one but with modern eBook files that actually have accessibility features. Smith(talk) 08:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should delete Gutenberg links in favour of this new site. It seems excessive to add another one, but I suppose it's harmless enough. Tim riley talk 08:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll add the SE link as well as the PG one. If you're at all interested in public domain literature, I'd recommend checking it out - it's not particularly new, and it's much more readable. Smith(talk) 11:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is cited to Ellmann 1988 pg. 88: The word "earnest" may also have been a code-word for homosexual, as in: "Is he earnest?", in the same way that "Is he so?" and "Is he musical?" were employed.

I don't have a physical copy of Ellmann, but I have an eBook edition (the title page says "First Vintage Books Edition, November 1988"), and am having a hard time verifying this claim. Page 88 of the eBook doesn't have any relevant material, but it's very likely the eBook and print editions have different pagination. However, I did a full-text search for terms like "Earnest", "code-word", and "musical" and found nothing relevant. Would someone with a physical copy be kind enough to verify this citation (and perhaps transcribe the relevant quote)? Colin M (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I stumbled on a source that does support this claim (with very similar wording even). pg. 475 of eBook edition of Neil McKenna's The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde: Among less literary Uranians, ‘earnest’ – a corruption of the French Uraniste – enjoyed a short vogue as a coded signifier of Uranian inclinations. ‘Is he earnest?’ had the same meaning, at about the same time, as the question ‘Is he musical?’. So if the original cite does fail citation, we at least have a drop-in replacement. Colin M (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: You're dead right that the citation to Ellman p. 88 is no good. The book is available on the wonderful Internet Archive here, and there's not a trace of the matter on the cited page. I'm cautious about McKenna's book, which strikes me – I may be wrong – as a bit sensationalist. I'll have a rummage and see if I can verify the statement from a source I feel confident about citing. Tim riley talk 19:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't take long – thanks once again to the Internet Archive. This is from Lord Annan's Our Age: Portrait of a Generation:

In the nineties one member of the fraternity might ask another, 'Is he musical?' or 'Is he earnest?', code words for homosexual as 'gay' is today. It is pleasant to think of Wilde, as he surveyed the first-night audience at the Haymarket, remembering that the most outrageous joke in his play was concealed in the title.

Dinner beckons, but I'll add this with appropriate bibliographical details tomorrow. In passing, "Is he musical?" was code for "Is he gay?" even when I was a young man, circa 1970, as was "Is he a friend of Dorothy?", though I can't imagine The Importance of Being a Friend of Dorothy would have gone down well at the Haymarket, or even at the St James's where pace Annan the premiere took place. Tim riley talk 20:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now attended to, but I found rather an odd thing when I looked at the other Ellmann references. Some are OK but one had a wrong page number (now corrected) and another was not only not on the claimed page, but was not there anywhere in the book that I can find. I have commented it out for now. Meanwhile, I see that the citation styles are a mess, and unless anyone objects I'll tidy them up into a consistent format. Tim riley talk 07:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just run across and uploaded a sketch of Leclerq as Lady Bracknell, and am unsure whether it is better to have a photograph of her in a different role (as we have at present) or a drawing of her in The Importance. I have experimented with (but not saved) replacing the photo with the sketch, but it looked a bit odd to me alongside two photographs of other cast members. Any thoughts on this? Tim riley talk 09:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My preference is for an image directly relevant to the article. I use MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for that opinion. I know that there are other images in the article that don't strictly follow that guideline and there is always WP:IAR. Even though it is a drawing rather than a picture I would support its use. Nice work on finding that image Tr. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done the deed, but if people think it was better before I shan't kick up a fuss. Tim riley talk 15:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call me obsessive, but I'd like to get a blue link for every member of the original cast. There are two to go and I am amassing enough material for a worthwhile article on the actor who played Lane (rather an interesting career later), but I am stuggling for information about Mrs George Canninge. She was Sarah Canninge, born 1843 and in the archives there are numerous reviews of her performances, but I can't find out when she died. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow obsessive Tim riley I have to congratulate you on your work on this. I'm not sure how much of a response you will get here. You could try asking at either the WP:RDE or the WP:RDH - but not both. There are several top notch researchers there and I have seen them dig into the available data to answer questions like this in the past. Good luck in you endeavours. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I didn't know about the reference desks you mention and will take your advice and ask my question at one of them - I'll ponder which. Tim riley talk 10:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The St James's Theatre listing (both here and on the New Mermaid Bloomsbury print edition) names Jack as John, when virtually everywhere else there is no mention of a John. Why is John written as a character? Was this simply a mistake or am I missing something? 92.17.154.158 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Honestly -- I might be tempted to move the "Publication" section up and subordinate it to "Productions", but otherwise, yes, it has a lot of sections, but they all seem to be the right ones. Normally, one might want to put "critical reception" and "analysis" together, since in many ways they're the same thing, but I can see the line adopted here.

A few suggestions: most readers will probably want "synopsis" as early as defensible: one of the most important things in an article on a play is what actually happens in that play. We could also stick the discussion of the play's genre at the top of "Analysis", as what we think to be the genre of a work of art really colours all the rest of our analysis. The bit on "Banbury" could perhaps be melded in with the discussion of a possible homosexual subtext, and we could perhaps roll "characterisation" into the discussion of social class and perhaps the use of language, but these suggestions are really tinkering around the edges. On the whole, it's clear, well-presented and reads smoothly, and makes sense to at least one reader (me) who hasn't seen or read the play. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC, never seen it?! I’m staggered! (I thoroughly recommend the 1952 version as the best of the lot.) - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the lead contains a bit too much on the Wilde-Queensberry dispute (it's only a paragraph in the body); it would benefit from focusing more on the thematic analysis and at least touching on the play's composition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest thanks to both. These are very much to the point and I'll enjoy working on them over the next day or two. Tim riley talk 07:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I've cherry picked gratefully. Suggestions from any other interested editors would be welcome too. I begin to think FAC might be a realistic prospect, and reinforcements will be gladly recruited. Tim riley talk 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely agree that the synopsis should be higher - I’d think about it being the first section. As the Composition section names characters and discusses plot points, it would work better coming second, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an emailed suggestion that the Publication section should come before the Analysis, which I'm happy with and have done.

The article is now at FAC. Tim riley talk 11:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article is going up on TFA, I'd like to say that some of the "Conjectural homosexual subtext" section seems to be stretching credulity. The whole section is already "conjectural". I'd say that two of the harder pieces of "evidence" in the section to take seriously are whether the play's puns and references to the German language are indications of "gay subtext". Not everything a critic speculates about needs to be included. I am not sure the section (the longest one in the Analysis section) complies with WP:DUE. Does anyone else feel the same? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree. It occurs to me that the whole of the existing second paragraph could be turned into a footnote. Also, in the Bunbury section, I think we could lose the assertion – uncited in the source (Fineman) and unsupported elsewhere as far as I can discover – that "bunbury" was ever slang for a male brothel. Tim riley talk 07:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In particular, searches for 'Bunbury' are repeated by a very small number of sources - all of them modern and all of them in connection with the play. There's no reference in any older works, or anything unconnected to the play. If it was slang, it would be included in works of gay history, books of slang, maybe some older works of gay fiction, etc, but nothing is coming up on the searches. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim. Those are excellent points. Once you feel there is consensus, I suggest that you go ahead and make the changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Trimmed accordingly. I agree with you both that the unsupported interpretations needed pruning. Tim riley talk 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes citations after most of the paragraphs of the plot summary pointing to page numbers in the script. This is not standard practice as Wikipedia assumes the text is the primary evidence for the synopsis, and that in-line citations should be used only for quotes and particularly complex plot developments. Is the idea that the plot is complex enough to justify these citations? Becsh (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citations do not require justification. They may help readers who wish to look up the relevant part of the play, and are not banned by the manual of style. This text has been through an exceptionally detailed FAC less than a year ago: if any of the reviewers thought the citations objectionable don't you imagine he or she might have said so? Tim riley talk 09:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOTCITE allows editors to drop citations in plot summary sections (with the assumption that "uncited" statements there are cited to the work itself), but it doesn't require it. In fact, it opens with Citations may or may not appear in a plot summary, explicitly allowing them. Given that they're here already, having them seems a clear benefit versus removing them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very well - thank you for explaining this. On a separate note, I would like to understand why my edits to the synopsis are objectionable. I appreciate that you are intent on maintaining clarity as well as a certain elegant style, but there are some issues with the synopsis. For example:

1. 'Adapted' is a better term than 'turned', with regards to the adaptation of a work. To say that a play has been turned into a musical or opera suggests that the original work has been transformed, which is not the case here; it has been adapted.

2. I have made some edits throughout the synopsis to indicate more clearly the causality between sentences. The most notable of these examples is the positionality of subjects here:

Horrified to learn that he was adopted – having been found as a baby in a handbag deposited at Victoria Station in London – she refuses him and forbids further contact with her daughter.

which I have changed to

When Jack reveals that he was adopted, having been found as a baby in a handbag deposited at Victoria Station in London, Bracknell refuses him and forbids further contact with her daughter.

I find that this is much easier to parse - would you not agree? Is the issue that Bracknell's horror is not conveyed? In that case, may I suggest:

Lady Bracknell is horrified to discover that Jack was adopted after being found as a baby in a handbag deposited at Victoria Station, rejecting his engagement with Gwendolen and forbidding further contact with her.

3. Beyond this, I have made some edits to verbs for consistency of style; rather than 'Jack has decided' I use 'Jack decides', since action that occurs non-chronologically will confuse the reader (Jack makes this decision much earlier in the play, but per Wikipedia's guidance for plot summaries chronology is not the raison d'être.

4. It is not needed to say that Gwendolen has escaped 'the Bracknell's London house', particularly given that Lady Bracknell's surname may well be Fairfax (think, for example, of people calling Downton Abbey 'the Grantham's house', when it is in fact the Crawley's house).

5. The sentence describing Miss Prism's moment of abstraction may perplex a first-time reader, and a synopsis must maintain readability. This is why I have rearranged the syntax.

I am happy for the reversion to the first paragraph to stand, but I do maintain that the edits I've made reinforce the clarity that the rest of the synopsis has. I would have liked to have taken part in last year's efforts to bring the article up to snuff, but I was performing in 'Earnest' at that time! Becsh (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can command a consensus here for your proposed alterations to the agreed text, so be it. Failing that, the status quo stands. Tim riley talk 12:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer you to the consensus page, which states that consensus may be reached via editing, rather than by discussion on talk pages alone. To avoid implicating you in a triple-revert, I won't be updating the article to reflect these changes for now, but it is not necessary to achieve consensus via talk page in this case. I appreciate that you have contributed a great deal to this page and many others, but if you are unable to explain why my edits are detrimental, I do not understand why the current version of the synopsis takes priority over these proposed changes. See action four of ownership behaviour. Becsh (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on Wikilawyering, may suggest you actually read the MoS guidance you purport to be quoting, such as WP:PLOTCITE and WP:CONSENSUS? – Tim riley talk 13:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing consensus through editing means tacit consensus -- if an edit is made and nobody objects or reverts it, it can be assumed that there's consensus for it. That's clearly not the case here, so the usual process is for the original editor, after a revert, to discuss and gain consensus on Talk. It's theoretically possible to just keep throwing out alternative edits and see if any of them prove uncontroversial, but realistically that's likely to take a lot of effort with a low chance of success. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, I cannot understand why my edits have been reverted, given that they range from readability (point 2) to factual accuracy (point 4). I understand that it is unproductive to keep throwing out edits and hope they fly under the radar, which is why I have said I won't be making the above edits until we can discuss them. But it would be great to move onto a discussion of the edits themselves, or else to seek a third opinion.

To reply to your point, Tim: I appreciate that the consensus is to maintain the citations, so there is no need to bring up the removal of citations again - I am happy with their inclusion. I am now only asking why the above edits appear detrimental to the article. Your accusations of Wikilawyering do not appear to be made in good faith. Becsh (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not appear to you, that is! Let us see if you can assemble a consensus for the alterations you want to make to the agreed FA text. Meanwhile I hope we shall not have to endure further extensive protestations from you. Tim riley talk 14:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a third opinion. For whoever takes this one, please see the page history for reverted edits - thank you! Becsh (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I would really appreciate it if we could remain civil. I am by no means as experienced an editor as either of you, but the way that Tim has responded to my edits today makes me feel very disheartened. I cannot understand how my protestations (whether my discussion here deserves that term I cannot say) are 'extensive' or why they must be 'endured'. Becsh (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was not helpful [1] for such a trivial matter. Your edits were more personal taste rather than improvements. It would have been better to have gone by Bold Revert Discuss, particularly as this is a Featured Article that has recently undergone an extensive review. I suggest we move on now. Graham Beards (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that, only yesterday, you supported Tim Riley during a conversation about restored images. I am sure that this might well be coincidental, as you are both frequent contributors, but I think it would benefit the article for this discussion to go on to dispute resolution. Thank you for your contribution nonetheless, and sorry it has to go further. Becsh (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the changes that were suggested through edits, I think the agreed consensus of the FAC remains the stronger text. And before anyone asks dubious questions about why I’m commenting here, it’s because this is still on my watchlist following the FAC review; I try to adhere to WP:AGF as much as possible, and I’d advise that questioning peoples’ motivations about why they have commented in a thread is outside that particular guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's talk about the suggestions:

• 1. 'Adapted' is a better term than 'turned'.

No, they are exact synonyms. The word adapted is already used elsewhere lots of times in the article, so using "turned" in this instance avoids boring repetition of the word.

• 2. I have made some edits throughout the synopsis to indicate more clearly the causality between sentences. The most notable of these examples is the positionality of subjects here: *Horrified to learn that he was adopted – having been found as a baby in a handbag deposited at Victoria Station in London – she refuses him and forbids further contact with her daughter.* vs Lady Bracknell is horrified to discover that Jack was adopted after being found as a baby in a handbag deposited at Victoria Station, rejecting his engagement with Gwendolen and forbidding further contact with her.

Again, this is exactly the same meaning, and provides no additional "causality", except for the repetition of the name Lady Bracknell, which is not needed.

• 3. Beyond this, I have made some edits to verbs for consistency of style; rather than 'Jack has decided' I use 'Jack decides', since action that occurs non-chronologically will confuse the reader (Jack makes this decision much earlier in the play, but per Wikipedia's guidance for plot summaries chronology is not the raison d'être.

The perfect tense preserves the fact that the decision was made earlier, so it seems to me much clearer.

• 4. It is not needed to say that Gwendolen has escaped 'the Bracknell's London house', particularly given that Lady Bracknell's surname may well be Fairfax (think, for example, of people calling Downton Abbey 'the Grantham's house', when it is in fact the Crawley's house).

Again, you are merely substituting your preferred expression for the expression already there without improving clarity.

• 5. The sentence describing Miss Prism's moment of abstraction may perplex a first-time reader, and a synopsis must maintain readability. This is why I have rearranged the syntax.

Placed and put are, again, synonymous. The syntax change does not, in my view, make even the slightest difference, and both are equally acceptable.

If you had made these suggestions at FAC, they would have been considered and discussed together with all other suggestions about the expression of the plot summary, and all the commenters at FAC would have been able to read and react to your suggestion to either agree or disagree. But now, after all those experienced FAC reviewers have read and accepted the text as is, new suggestions for improvement are, and should be, reviewed with caution, and changes should require a clear consensus that an actual improvement is being made, rather than just one editor's preferences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would completely second this analysis. There will always be personal disagreements about style and expression, but I think the case for retaining the existing version is stronger than that for any of the edits proposed here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments - I only wish that Tim Riley had provided this kind of explanation as to why my suggestions were inappropriate, rather than resorting to what I perceived as incivility and accusing me of Wikilawyering rather than assuming my actions were in good faith. Had this explanation been provided sooner, I would not have sought a third opinion; nevertheless, I do believe that it was inappropriate of Graham Beard to offer an opinion given their vested interest in the article and support yesterday of Tim Riley's use of photo-editing. I would argue that Graham should not be offering a third opinion in this case, as it feels to me like a group of collaborators coming together to defend one another against edits. Even if this is not how these contributors intend to act, they should be wary of shouting down other people's ideas (I note in particular that Tim's words came across as very snide, as my earlier comment explains).

I do maintain that point 4 is a real sticking point for me, though! It wouldn't be appropriate to say that the Devonshires' house is Chatsworth; the Duke and Duchess's surname is Cavendish. I appreciate that this might seem like my preferred expression, but it is still contrary to the evidence we have in the script (namely that Gwendolen's surname is Fairfax). It would be great to come to a consensus on this point if none of the others. Thank you all. Becsh (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current phrasing (having left the Bracknells' London house -- note the apostrophe location) is standard (British) English with titles of nobility -- Lord and Lady Swansea could be described as "the Swanseas". See this news article, which uses "the Waleses" for the Prince and Princess of Wales, though their surname is "Windsor", inasfar as they have one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find this one editor's nasty insinuations distasteful, and his/her approach aggressive and uncollegial. S/he seems to assume that s/he has a monopoly of wisdom and that anyone who disagrees is in a conspiracy against him/her. I do not look forward to further visitations from this editor. Tim riley talk 17:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, UndercoverClassicist - that is a very strong point, and I resign my case. Whatever the outcome, I am glad we have treated this trivial matter as seriously as Wilde would hope.

Tim riley, I have not been nasty in any way, I have only expressed how you made me feel. The reason I feel that the people disagreeing with me was problematic was only because they have recently supported one another in other examples, namely Graham's support for your use of digitally-enhanced photos yesterday, which to me suggests a bias that makes their offering a third opinion somewhat dubious. I do not think it is fair to call my approach aggressive and uncollegial; you are the one who said that you 'hope we shall not have to endure further extensive protestations' from me and I had not expected such incivility from an editor with two decades' experience. Forgive me all my trespasses as I forgive yours. Best, Becsh (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note your views. Tim riley talk 18:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your Talk Page, Graham Beards (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - The article mentions revivals staged the UK, USA, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, all of which are English-speaking countries. I appreciate that revivals have been staged in non-English-speaking countries and that the article mentions the issues of translating the title, but to point out that the play has been performed in English-speaking countries and elsewhere in the lead is unnecessary given the focus of the article. The issue isn't so much that elsewhere does not mean everywhere but that elsewhere is so broad in scope that it could mean anywhere. Expressing that the play has been frequently revived is sufficient and neatly communicates the point.

I'll also tag Vanamonde93 who made the first bold edit[2]. My apologies for making my reversion against Tim's reversion; I had thought this was a new addition to the article.Becsh (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. The point is to emphasise in the lead as well as in the main text that the play is not performed only in the English original. I saw a splendid production in Paris a few years ago. The line that got the biggest laugh was "Par bonheur, en Angleterre du moins, l'éducation n'est suivie d'aucun effet". Tim riley talk 11:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I question, however, whether this is currently communicated with the right words. The sentence doesn't suggest that translated versions are performed 'elsewhere', but that the play is performed in countries that don't speak English. I didn't appreciate that the intended meaning is that it is performed in translation since the sentence doesn't hint at this. Perhaps a different way of expressing that it is performed in translation would be appropriate to give as much clarity as possible? Becsh (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that level of detail is better left to the main text. French productions are more often given in French than in English, but there have been several productions in English in France over the years. This is easily established thanks to the invaluable Archives du spectacle, and though I imagine the same applies mutatis mutandis to other non-Anglophone countries I have seen no evidence to substantiate the fact, if fact it be. – Tim riley talk 12:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• My edits were to address verbiage that adds no meaning. "English speaking countries and elsewhere" does not convey any notion of translation, and does not in any way limit the scope of where the play was performed. "many actors have been associated with the play" is a complete redundancy; we've been told the play has been widely performed for more than a century, it's the most obvious thing that many actors have been associated with it. My sibling performed the play once, but I don't think that's what the sentence refers to. It very obviously refers to notable actors. If the adjective is objectionable, I would suggest simply rephrasing as "actors associated with the play include..." or equivalent. Given how similar disputes have gone, I have no interest in engaging further. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest simply rephrasing as "actors associated with the play include..." or equivalent. - I quite agree. 'Notable' is a word to watch, but this is a great way to avoid redundancy. I also agree that 'and elsewhere' doesn't communicate translation or limit scope. Becsh (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about losing the WP:PEA word briefly added, and disagree about the other point. but will of course go along with any consensus to the contrary if one is established here. If wishing to persist please seek the input of all the peer reviewers and the reviewers at FAC. Tim riley talk 18:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why some edits to the article are accepted without requiring the go-ahead from all peer reviewers and FAC reviewers while others are not. I think it would be a great nuisance to the reviewers to have to effectively give consent for the article to be changed in light of discussion here. Is this founded in policy? Becsh (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simply common sense and good manners. Removing a recent addition is not the same as altering the text numerous reviewers have approved. Tim riley talk 18:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the reviewers for minor alterations to two sentences is quite unnecessary. Please address the merits of that sentence: what does "many actors have been involved" add to the readers' understanding? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious to me, but the other reviewers may share your views if you consult them. Tim riley talk 20:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this at the teahouse yesterday and was informed that you do not need to contact previous FAC reviewers or peer reviewers before making an edit to a Featured Article. FAs can be edited like any other article, as long as edits follow policy and are properly sourced.[3]

I remained unsure as to whether this has ever been a policy or guideline, and the closest thing I could find to suggest that reviewers need to give input to article edits is an entry at WP:PEREN - 'protect featured articles'. The proposal suggests protecting or semi-protecting FAs to prevent deterioration, but the reasons for rejection confirms that FAs are not "finished" articles and that there is, and always will be, room for further improvement. I can find nothing in policy to suggest that edits require reviewer input, comment or consent.

There have been other edits to the article since it was promoted to FA and reviewers didn't have to approve those changes. For example:

• A correction to a critical quotation[4]
• A link to Ronkẹ Adékọluẹ́jọ́[5] following an edit to the mention of 2025-6 NT version [6], itself a copy-edit of the first insertion of the mention[7]
• A correction to an incorrect link to Chris Calloway[8] and Hope Williams[9]
• A copy-edit to change have the idea of marrying to wish to marry[10]
• Mentioning the previously-unmentioned 1958 television broadcast[11]

None of these changes were reverted or discussed on the talk page. I remain unsure as to why these edits were permitted to remain in the article without requiring input from all the peer reviewers and reviewers at FAC. Asking some editors to seek reviewer input and not others may, as I stated in my question at the teahouse, constitutes WP:VOTESTACKING insofar as past reviewers are likely to have a predetermined point of view. In any case, this is adjacent to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR/protecting other editors' ownership behaviour.

I am not especially keen to engage further at this time given that we are currently involved in an open conduct dispute at AN/I, but I would like to stress that if you cannot demonstrate with references to appropriate policies that reviewers should be consulted when making edits to FAs, you should not ask editors to seek such input. Becsh (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, it seems to me a matter of courtesy and common sense. Tim riley talk 18:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, if you would care to contribute positively to an article on a not dissimilar topic I have Henry Irving up for peer review. I've had four splendidly fruitful reviews with suggestions so far, and will welcome any more. Tim riley talk 19:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]