Talk:Back to the Future: The Musical

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Back to the Future (musical). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140207095232/http://bttf.com/back-to-the-future-the-musical-coming-in-2015 to http://www.bttf.com/back-to-the-future-the-musical-coming-in-2015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222202752/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/187123-Musical-Version-of-Back-to-the-Future-Set-to-Open-in-West-End-in-2015?tsrc=nx to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/187123-Musical-Version-of-Back-to-the-Future-Set-to-Open-in-West-End-in-2015?tsrc=nx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209052618/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/back-future-musical-planned-london to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/back-future-musical-planned-london

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

2016? Update please

I'm not exactly sure what to say to update it myself, so I'll just leave a suggestion here. We're past 2016 now and into 2017, so the 2016 release info should probably either be updated or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B129:84B1:E8FE:ACB0:537D:A879 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Other reviews

I added a Reception section and one review, as well as info on suspension. Playbill has links to other reviews for anyone interested in adding them. See here. RobP (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Casting

Casting for any production should not be put on the casting table until the production officially begins performances. Anything can change between now and then. WP:CRYSTALBALL Smitty1999 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL is about rumours and unverifiable information. The casting has been confirmed by the production and the actors themselves. I can't see any logical reason to hold off on it for the ever so slight chance it will change. DeputyBeagle (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What you need to understand is that things can change. We cannot predict the future. That's why in the text for the Broadway production, we mention that it's "scheduled" or "expected". Back to the casting, take the 2020 revival of West Side Story for example. Ben Cook was originally cast as Riff but during early previews, he suffered a severe injury and had to withdraw from the production. We can't put full casting in until the production is officially in performances. I really do not want to have a WP:EDITWAR here. Please be respectful. Smitty1999 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a very unlikely circumstance you're preparing for. Yes, there's a slight chance it could change, but if we're going to argue that then WP couldn't ever have any articles about future events. If the cast is announced to change, we can update it, but that's not a reason to leave it off now. I'd argue you're engaging more in WP:CRYSTALBALL than I am by working off the assumption the cast can and will change from the verifiable and announced cast. DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The casts on these boards are the casts that are in place after the production officially begins performances. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. When the show begins performances, that is when the Broadway cast will be added to the boards. In the meantime, casting information can be found on the references section and people can go to those links and read it themselves. Again, there is no need to WP:EDITWAR here. If the casting board is changed before the show officially starts performances, it will keep getting deleted. End of discussion! Smitty1999 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You can't mandate end of discussion, and I'm not edit warring. If you look back at the history for this page, you'll see casting was added for the Manchester cast before it opened and there was no objection to that. Why would it be any different for Broadway? Multiple different people have tried to add the casting and you're the only one objecting here. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Smitty1999 We seem to have hit a bit of an impasse in the conversation and nobody has budged. Nobody else has engaged in the conversation except the two of us, so I've listed it at WP:3O DeputyBeagle (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle there are three spaces on the table that are marked TBA for the Broadway cast. We do not know who will be playing those roles yet. Therefore, the casting table for the Broadway production should remain off until those roles are confirmed. People can look at the sources for casting information for the time being until the production begins performances. Smitty1999 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So? We can add information even if it's incomplete. You need to stop trying to impose your view on this. Literally every other page I've checked has added the cast ahead of time, including this one for the UK cast. Several people have tried to add the information in, and the 3rd opinion has agreed that it should be there, and you're the only one reverting. That's pretty much as close to consensus as you can get for something like this. DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

DeputyBeagle While I agree with you with regards to the inclusion of this information in the article, remember that consensus is not a vote. Objections from other editors can be disregarded when forming consensus if they are unconstructive or repetitive (while having been dealt with), but the mere fact of someone being outnumbered does not make them wrong. Smitty1999, they are right that you have been repeating your objections without really engaging in a productive argument. Do you have anything to say that has not been said and addressed already? Actualcpscm (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right about consensus, sorry, I'll happily admit that. Consensus is hard to form on something with so few editors so perhaps I jumped to a rash judgement there. DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm I am just following what other users have done when it comes to these pages. When the musical Parade announced it's broadway revival, people rushed to put casting on it but was removed until the production officially began performances. There was a bit of a WP:EDITWAR on that page. There were disagreements, but people found common ground and understood that we cannot predict the future and stay with the present moment. Smitty1999 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit wars are of course bad, that's why we're discussing this here instead of using edit summaries :)

Jokes aside, behavioural precedent is not always reliable. If there is a consensus on this matter in general, that would be applicable; if there is such a consensus, I am not aware of it. I think it's important to regularly refer back to the relevant policies and guidelines, and I don't think there's much there that would go against including this relevant information, notwithstanding some level of uncertainty.

Also, thanks for remaining civil! I've been on vandalism patrol today, so I have a newfound appreciation for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm of course. I got into a heated argument with someone on a different page about proper headings. We came to an agreement and moved on. Thankfully though, it took place on the talk board here instead of on the actual page itself. Smitty1999 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it was that way with Parade, but I looked at the page for Funny Girl and that was added without concern. Same as I mentioned with this page for the UK cast. I can look into more examples if preffered, but I think that shows at least that the precedent isn't necessarily to leave it off. DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle again, I am just following what other pages have done. That's why we have had this heated, but civil discussion. People can see the full casting information on the sources we provide to back them up. Smitty1999 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are though is the short and the long of it. Maybe it was done like that on Parade, but it's not necessarily the same across other pages. The point of Wikipedia is to show the information in an accessible way, so if people have to go source diving to find the information then I'm not sure we've done our jobs properly. DeputyBeagle (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We put the sourcing information regarding broadway casting in the broadway section of the page. People can find the information there. However, we are missing a couple confirmed roles from the table. Once those are confirmed and the production begins performances, then the casting can be put on the table. Smitty1999 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see why it matters that there are unconfirmed roles. Like I mentioned, we should be presenting the information in an accessible way. We've got the sources linked but won't give them the inforation on the page? I truly don't see the logic in that. And again there's no reason to leave it until performances start when the production has confirmed that is the cast that will be performing DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It kind does matter. To show a role as "TBA" means the casting is incomplete or the role is not going to be a part of the new production. We don't have any sources to back that up but I have seen that on other pages. In the productions page where I wrote when the casting was announced, there is a citation next to it. Readers can click on that link and read the information there. On June 30, that's when the casting table can be updated for the Broadway casting. Originally, I would have agreed with you on this topic for discussion, but another wikipedia user, who has more knowledge on here than I do, explained to me why casting boards should only be updated when the production in question began performances. The main reasoning is because we cannot predict the future and that things can change. What goes on that board should be the cast that is performing when the show officially starts. I have many disagreements with this user, but on this subject, I actually agree with them on. You can talk to them if you don't believe me. The user's name is Ssilvers. They have been an active user/editor on here since like 2006 I think? I don't agree with their views on headings, but they do make a good point on casting boards. Smitty1999 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't really explained why it matters if the casting is incomplete.

Yes there's a citation next to it, but like I said users shouldn't have to go searching for the information. It's reliably sourced and exceedingly unlikely to change. This page is here to serve as a repository of information, and since it is sourced and official, the reasons for leaving it off seem flimsy at best DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not that hard to search for casting information. You can literally enter in google, "Back to the Future Broadway casting". That, or they can click on the links we provided to back up the information provided on the page. It does matter if casting is incomplete. We do not know who some of these roles will be played by. When we know for sure who will be playing those roles and the production opens, then we can put the cast board on. I think that's a simple explanation. I'm sorry if you may disagree, but we need to keep the page in the present moment and not put anything that hasn't happened yet. We cannot predict the future, no pun intended. Smitty1999 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Putting TBC is the opposite of trying to predict the future. It's acknowledgement that we don't know the future. Predicting the future would be going 'well JJ Niemann is probably Dave/Slick so we'll put him down' but we're not doing that.

Putting TBC is the opposite of trying to predict the future. It's acknowledgement that we don't know the future. Predicting the future would be going 'well JJ Niemann is probably Dave/Slick so we'll put him down' but we're not doing that. And you still haven't really answered the question of why it matters if we put TBC. Your answer so far seems to have been that it matters because it matters, which is rather circular.

And yes the information is already on the internet, but so is literally every single piece of information on Wikipedia. If you're going to argue that we should leave it out because people can do their own research then you might as well argue that Wikipedia has no place to exist. DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That is so far from what I mean. The casting is incomplete and can change between now and when performances begin. Therefore, it should remain off until then. Plain and simple. I think we have discussed this long enough. Smitty1999 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The casting is incomplete, yes, but the casting we do have almost certainly will not change between now and then. You've still not made a compelling argument for why this should be left off. Wikipedia talks about stuff that's in the future, why is this any different?

Again, you can't force end of discussion. If you want to impose your way, you discuss until there's consensus. You can leave the conversation if you want, but if you do then stop undoing edits where people add the information in. DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The show hasn't started performances yet which can also be canceled at any moment. I am not saying that this show will be cancelled or postponed, but we do not know what could happen. Look at what recently happened to the play Room. It's planned broadway run was indefinitely postponed. Again, I am not saying that will necessarily happen to this show, but we cannot guarantee that will happen. Can you see the future? The answer is no! Can Wikipedia see the future? NO! We need to be focused on the present. I have presented a good-enough argument here! I am sorry if it is not to your expectations, but there is no need to continue this. The Broadway casting will remain OFF the board until June 30, when the show is expected to begin performances! Smitty1999 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We work off the assumption that what reliable sources say is accurate. If they say performances will start then we assume they will. If that changes then the page updates. There's no reason to keep the page clear of future activities. If we do that then Wikipedia would never have any mention of anything in the future, which would be absurd.

And again, no, you haven't made a good enough argument until consensus is on your side. Stop acting like you get to steamroll and impose your view because you're bored of the discussion. Either talk until you have consensus, or stop undoing edits about it. That's the options here. DeputyBeagle (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I am not imposing my personal view whatsoever. I am just following what other theatre pages have done when it comes to future casting. They kept FUTURE casting off the page until the production began performances! Once again, things can change between now and then and we cannot predict the future! (WP:CRYSTAL) Whatever cast goes on that board is the cast that will be performing when the show actually opens! I don't know what else you want me to say! I have made my case LOUD AND CLEAR and you will not in any shape or form listen! If you continue to keep adding the Broadway casting, I will keep removing it until the production starts. However, that would mean an WP:EDITWAR and we cannot have that on this page! Just leave it alone! Smitty1999 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I spoke with someone who is an expert with this information more and they gave me not 1, not 2, but 6 reasons why casting should not be posted on the boards until public performances begin. The 6th reason pretty much sums up this WHOLE debate we have been having on here! The production basically does not exist until it begins public performances! It can be cancelled at any moment in time! (WP:CRYSTAL). Talk with Ssilvers if you do not believe me! Smitty1999 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody else involved with this discussion, either on the talk page or the edits on the main page has affirmed your view. Yet you insist you will keep undoing edits. Now you accuse me of edit warring? Look in the mirror.

I've shown you already how that is not the standard across all theatre articles, but even if it was, consensus doesn't automatically carry over from page to page like that unless there's a rule about it.

Either argue your point until we're all happy the conversation is done, or drop it. The choice is yours. DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, talk with the user Ssilvers. I’m not going to keep this going because you are not going to agree. Multiple theatre articles have this similar formatting. Keep the formatting the way it is now. Smitty1999 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept consensus even if it goes against me, but you don't have consensus. I nominated this discussion for WP:3O in order to try and get some consensus or mediate the dispute somewhat, but you subsequently ignored the 3O opinion.

I'm not willing to accept your verdict just because you say that's how it should be, so I'll keep adding it back until you get consensus to remove it. DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

While it is possible that the casting will change, it is not unusual for Wikipedia to report on future productions when information is available from reliable sources. As long as such content is relevant and reliably sourced, it can and should be included. If this is a situation where the future of the cast is unusually unclear, that should be mentioned. On the other hand, if every reliable soruce treated this as a completely certain and unchangeable matter, that's what Wikipedia should reflect. Remember that Wikipedia reports only based on what other reliable sources have published. For example, you might write "On day XYZ, the expected cast was announced to include actors A, B, and C." What's important are not your personal opinions on the reliability or certainity of this expected cast, but how it has been reported on by the relevant reliable sources. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fully agreed. There's no reason to assume the cast will change DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit war :(

DeputyBeagle Smitty1999 I don't have any real authority over you or this issue, but at this point, I would recommend both of you stop reverting. It could be argued that you are engaging in an edit-war, and that is never the solution to an editing dispute (barring vandalism and similar cases). Normally, I would suggest WP:3O, but that avenue has led nowhere. To be clear, I have an opinion on this matter, but I would not call myself involved in this dispute.

At this point, I have two more suggestions. You can go on and try RfC or DRN, but it looks like you've both reached a point we're you're not willing to budge on your viewpoints, which makes me doubt the efficacy of those methods. What I would do if I were you is disengage. There is plenty of work to do in other places, and both of you could be contributing great stuff elsewhere instead of devoting energy and time to this dispute. There is also plenty of stuff to do in real life, something that I might need to get back to soon :)

This applies to both of you, but especially DeputyBeagle due to my 3O; Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. (WP:EW).

I don't think reporting each other to ANEW is necessary yet, especially because the discussion here is ongoing and you're not reverting blindly. Still, edit wars are unconstructive, exhausting, unnecessary, and just majorly uncool. So, you know. Take it easy. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right. It's hard to let go of a dispute when opinions are strong. I'll try to disengage but it's hard to let it stand without the information when I feel so strongly that it should be here.

Sorry for edit warring. I'll try to drop it for now DeputyBeagle (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been wanting to end this for days now. I was just following editing procedures that I and others have done on other theatre pages. I'm sorry if someone may disagree but there are reasons why I am standing by my point. I don't need to recap them again as I've made it clear on the other topic page. Smitty1999 (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Smitty1999 Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. (WP:EW). Actualcpscm (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to wipe your hands of it like that. I'm happy to disengage if you are too. I won't add the information back, but if someone else does then leave it to another person to undo if they feel the same as you.

That's the best way to resolve this situation amicably imo DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I will happily stop but again, I never intended for this to go as far as it did. I was just following what other pages like ALW's Cinderella, Parade, etc. If you look at the edit history of those pages, you will see that they kept future casting off the table until it opened. I will bring Ssilvers to this page to help out. Smitty1999 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If you bring in someone else specifically to fill in and remove it, surely that's WP:MEATPUPPET. I'm happy for us both to drop it, but enlisting someone else kinda goes against the spirit of disengaging. DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This user has more experience and organization on Wikipedia than both of us do. I already contacted them. I haven't heard anything yet but they can help clean up these tensions and monitor this page for the future. You just need to trust me on this one thing. Smitty1999 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of his level of experience, it's still WP:MEAT. You've brought in an uninvolved editor to the dispute to back you up. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Smitty pointed me here, as noted above. I edit a lot of musical theatre articles, and I have been active in the WP:MUSICALS project since 2006. I have created several hundred articles about musical theatre on Wikipedia. I do not know Smitty. He says that he and I disagreed about some stuff in the past, but I have no memory of what it was. Having said all that, I agree strongly that we should not add new columns to casting tables (which are already bloated and over-emphasized in musicals articles) until a show actually opens. Until that time, the show could be cancelled, greatly postponed, re-cast, the actors could strike, etc. We already say in the productions section that certain people have been cast to star in the musical, and we link to the full casting details in the source. A little bit of patience is good. See WP:CRYSTAL This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page, so, again, I recommend waiting until the Broadway production opens. I looked over the background and productions sections of this article and removed a lot of repetition from the film pages that is not relevant here. What would be relevant would be a section discussing the major differences between the film plot and the musical's plot (with reliable sources cited). Also, the reception section is awful. It should quote some reviews by well-known critics (from the West End and later Broadway productions), and any mention of the reactions of the fans of the film should not be at the top of the section. Again, this is not a fan page, it is an encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Ssilvers! I think the only disagreement we had was about headings on the Parade musical page but that's not important. That aside, I appreciate you coming over here to help. Smitty1999 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed the page could use some work. However, stripping back the casting section just isn't the place that needs fixing. You point out WP:CRYSTAL, but referring to events which will happen in the future as cited by reliable sources is not trying to predict the future.

I won't go over all the arguments again as you can see it above, but I am concerned your presence in this conversation comes just as Smitty and I were asked to disengage. I appreciate you working to improve the page, but if you're planning on enforcing the no casting argument that Smitty was pushing then it does come off as meatpuppetry. DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't say who was cast in the principal roles, but I am suggesting that the place to do that, for now, is in the Productions section (where some are already named, and a link is already given to the full casting), and that we should wait to add the new column to the table until previews begin. However, if you look at the Featured Articles in the musicals area, they use a more efficient kind of casting table that is better, while still mentioning all the notable players in the Productions section. See The King and I, for example. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm not here to argue with you. I've agreed to disengage and I plan on sticking to that. You can see all the points in the discussion above.

I'm just saying, you should disengage too. The timing and nature of your arrival to the conversation makes it appear you were asked to join specifically to back up Smitty. The two of us are disengaging, and I would suggest you should too.

I appreciate the other changes you've made to improve the page, but just let the casting section be. If somebody adds it, leave it to someone else to remove DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SsilversWhat happened to disengaging? Again I don't want to have to report you for WP:TAGTEAM, I would much rather everyone involved in this discussion dropped it but you haven't.

If someone else adds it, leave it up to a different person to revert. The nature of how you joined the conversation makes it very clearly an attempt at WP: MEATPUPPET DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle Why are you still on this? It's been over a month since you and I disengaged. Just let it go! Smitty1999 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Smitty1999 You got someone else to engage on your behalf. That's not disengaging.

I'm not gonna let it go whilst somebody you brought in is still actively undoing edits. If all three of us drop it, I'm happy to. You can't just bring someone in to do your dirty work and wipe your hands of it DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle I brought him here because he is an expert and has more experience than you and I on Wikipedia. Also, I brought him over here because you and I needed to disengage from this page! He's undoing unnecessary edits and making the page better! Just leave him alone! Smitty1999 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your intention, you brought him here to fill in for you just as you disengaged since you knew his opinion on the topic would match yours. That at the very least goes against the spirit of disengaging, and is very reminiscent of tag-teaming.

He's made some solid edits and I won't fault him for that, but he's also still engaging in the cast dispute which needs to be dropped across the board. Let uninvolved parties sort it out. I won't add it, but you two need to not remove it if someone else does.

Also, he may be an expert but as you can read at WP:EXPERT, experts can be wrong. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle Also, he's not doing any of this on my behalf! I do not know him personally! Again, I referred him to this page because he is an expert on these pages and he can make this page better! Smitty1999 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to know him personally for this to be a tagteam. You knew his opinion matched yours and brought him on as you left. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud dude, just STOP! You are just heating things up again and that is not needed on this page! Just leave him alone! You wanna report him, go ahead, but he has done nothing wrong! We both disengaged and that's that! Smitty1999 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to report him, that's a very last-resort scenario. I just want this dispute resolved amicably. Someone else taking over the mantle at your behest doesn't do any of us good.

Again, he's made some good edits and I'll applaud him for those. He has largely made the page better, but the nature of him coming to be involved in this dispute is not positive. If he was an uninvolved editor who neither of us had discussed it with then I would say fair enough. The bottom line though is that because you invited him to the discussion to back you up, he became an agent acting for you.

So I'll make a report if we can't sort this, but I'm not willing to let it slide, sorry. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, this won't be resolved in your view because you are so fixated on this. The whole cast board thing is important! The show is beginning performances in just over a month. We can add the Broadway casting when the show starts on June 30. Surly, you can wait another month! Broadway casting information is in the production section where people can READ through it! It's not that hard to read it! I really do not want to re-engage in this but if you don't knock this off, you will give me no choice! I don't want it to go that way, but clearly, you won't stop. Smitty1999 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's ok to add in a month, why can't we add it now? They've begun rehearsals, the cast is extremely unlikely to change.

Regardless, like I said I'm happy to disengage, but you two have to too. If I disengage but you pass the buck to someone else then you get to steamroll your way without consensus.

The only way I'm dropping this is with consensus one way or the other, or all three of us agreeing to disengage. If you can get consensus for your view then I'll accept it, but you don't have it. DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they have begun rehearsals, but ANYTHING can happen between now and then. An actor could get injured and have to withdraw. An actor could be fired for some reason. Those are some examples of why casting should remain off until it officially begins performances! June 30 is a month away! You can wait! The only reason I brought Ssilvers here is to make the page OVERALL better and he's done that! I never asked him to help ME with this dispute! I referred him to it to help out! Smitty1999 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Broadway production is set to begin previews in a week [update: 5 weeks]. If and when that happens, I will have no objection to adding the column to the cast table, etc. Until then, I hope everyone has something else constructive to do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, the Broadway production is scheduled to start previews on June 30 but thank you for the clarification! Smitty1999 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I almost lost a month out of my life! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers I'm not sure it's fair to insinuate I'm being unconstructive here. If it can be added in a month, it can be added now. There was no movement on the article for a while, hence why I dropped the discussion. I took it at face value that your silence wasn't you just ignoring requests to disengage. This is at least WP:VOTESTACKING if not WP:TAGTEAM, and I don't really appreciate you just trying to wind down the clock and say "well you can wait a month" because you've set a somewhat arbitrary date for its inclusion and WP:STEAMROLLED your view. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle Just let it go! The reason why it CANNOT be added now is because something could happen in the next month! It could be cancelled or something could happen to an actor and there could be a recasting. Take the play Room for example. They were supposed to be on Broadway this past season, but midway through rehearsals, the show was indefinitely postponed due to the departure of its lead producer. Things can happen! You are just embarrassing yourself now and really need to let this go! The cast board will stay as it is until June 30! End of discussion! Smitty1999 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If things happen, we change it. This is steamrolling through and through. You don't get to force your way.

Plus again, I'm not trying to add my stuff anymore, I'm just trying to get all 3 of us to disengage. You've found a very clever loophole that means you can pass off the buck and not have to disengage. I'll happily drop it once everyone agrees to leave the adding and deleting to people that aren't you, me or ssilvers DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I have not made an edit on this page since you and I agreed to disengage. Once again, I referred Ssilvers to help clean it up and make this page better! You can keep accusing me of him helping me, which is totally false! If you want to report me or him, go right ahead but you will lose badly! We did nothing wrong! Smitty1999 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said you made an edit. That's kinda the point of WP:TAGTEAM. Just as you agreed to disengage you brought on someone else who you knew would agree with you. I truly don't understand how you can think that behaviour is above board DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding the casting column and IB info *on or after* the date that the production begins performances is not arbitrary, as amply explained above, and no amount of your repeating yourself can make it arbitrary. Regarding "silence" and "disengaging", I don't know what you are talking about. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and have greatly improved thousands of articles here. This is one of them. When I discovered this article, it was filled with fancruft, repetition, bloat and other very bad prose. Now it is, at least, straightforward and comprehensible. I intend to continue to watchlist and maintain it to the best of my ability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look back at the discussion you'll see I said multiple times I am grateful for a lot of the changes you've made, and I'm not asking you to leave the page completely.

In terms of the silence, I'm talking about the ignoring the 12 April message where I asked you to disengage. I took your lack of response as a tacit acknowledgment of "ok I'll drop this dispute" but then another user added it and you continued to remove it. You haven't acknowledged the fact that the way you joined this dispute is problematic. I'm simply asking you to disengage from the casting dispute because you would not have been involved in this page were it not for you being referred to it by Smitty because they knew your view matched theirs. DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle So basically, you are asking them to continue making the page better but ignore the casting table? How does that make ANY SENSE? Seriously! You just need to stop! Smitty1999 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well yeah that's how disengaging works. I think it would make the page better to have the cast but I am happy to disengage so I haven't added it. They might think it's better without the cast but they need to disengage so they shouldn't remove it. DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeputyBeagle Well I have not done anything either so just leave Ssilvers alone and let them continue to make the page better! Smitty1999 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• DeputyBeagle, can I suggest you read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:DROPTHESTICK? I’ve just read through this with mounting horror at the lack of good faith here. Please stop questioning people’s motivations in editing. If you continue to focus on other editors rather than the article, you’ll end up at WP:ANI.
  In terms of the actual point raised in this long and tawdry conversation, WP:CRYSTAL is the appropriate guideline that says we don’t include things that have not happened. Anything could happen to cast members over the next few weeks, so a cast list doesn’t get included until the show opens. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do apologise for my tone. It can be hard to drop the stick as you mention and I will leave this conversation. I do assure you I wasn't trying to engage with a lack of good faith. It became difficult when it seemed to reach a natural disengaging point and then it appeared Ssilvers was brought in to reengage.

  I was really hoping to resolve this amicably and like I mentioned my goal has been to get all editors to disengage, but I can see I was perhaps a bit hypocritical here in still monitoring the changes rather than assuming it would end.

  As a final point I would like to just mention once again that WP:CRYSTAL really doesn't apply here since assuming future events happen as announced isn't really predicting the future.

  I will drop it now so to not escalate it more than the inflamed tensions it's gotten to. DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)