Talk:Clue (musical)

Dear new editors

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project to make available public domain, free and fair use information that is sourced to Reliable sources, written in a Neutral tone, and focuses on the information that most readers would find important. If you would like to discuss any content here, feel free to use this Talk page, and someone will be very likely to respond to you and discuss how to improve the content. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Productions section

All of the production section, which was referenced with reliable sources, was deleted today (Sept 1, 2012). There was no explanation for this deletion; before restoring, I will ask the editor why s/he deleted this section. This process may take a few days/weeks as I have other activiies (real life, in other words) to attend to.Flami72 (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Production section restored. That section also has appropriate references. I did not restore the NY Times review material. In my opinion, the reasoning of the editor who deleted this secion ("The inclusion of a Production section is unnecessary, as the cities the production performed in are listed at the top of the posting. Furthermore, including subjective quotations adds no factual merit to the information about the show. An encyclopedia, even one online, should present facts not commentary.") runs against the established guidelines of the Musical theatre guidelines. It also appears that the editor may be objecting to the review material, which I have not restored. (I can certainly understand why an editor with the username of "Prodirman2" might object to so-called "subjective quotations".)Flami72 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the silly "advert" tag and made some copy edits. The plot has lost the mention of the songs. I would recommend restoring them, as is usual in musicals articles in the (parentheses and "quote") format as usual. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I just restored the sourced version of the Production section again - I suggest that the users who object to this version of the Production section engage in discussion here before merely deleting it again. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored the song titles and quotes from reviews. The commentary of newspaper critics with respect to a musical are of interest to readers of articles about musicals. We seek to collect and present information about the critical and audience reception of works of musical theatre, often in a separate Reception section, or else in the Productions section. See the article structure page at WP:MUSICALS for more information. See Carousel (musical) for an example of a musical that has been promoted to Featured Article and contains the kinds of information that the highest-quality articles about musical theatre should contain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I wonder if User talk:Prodirman and User talk:Prodirman2; and User talk:Men Dacity NYC 2013 and User talk:Mendacitynyc are related, or are the same person. I am assumimg good faith, but this appears to be close to a sock puppet situation, possibly innocent but...?(WP:SOCK).

I agree that they appear to be socks. I mentioned it to Materialscientist, who says he/she will look into it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The socks (other than the original account, Prodirman) are all indefinitely blocked now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism continues, possible IP sock of Prodirman?? User talk:66.108.247.179.Flami72 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a new sock to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism

This article is under vandalism attack, from User talk:Steadguy31 and User talk:CTM Legal. I do not know whether these are socks of User talk:Prodirman but, WP:QUACK sounds about right to me. Flami72 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what the perceived problem might be? The article seems completely innocuous to me, I don't understand why anyone would make legal threats about it's content? I am happy not to edit it further until the dispute is resolved. Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no bona fide dispute; there is merely a person or persons who wish to stubbify the article by removing, in particular, the Productions section. For more information and suggestions about how to write a good article about a musical theatre work, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. For an example of a very good musical theatre article, see Carousel (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no special insight into Proderman and his (probable) socks, but I suspect he does not like the negative reviews of a show he was in some way involved with, and is taking somewhat drastic (and, in my view, desperate) measures to obscure those reviews. (This is just my opinion, of course.) Flami72 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Another legal threat, this one by User talk:RighteousWikiGal, on the talk page and since deleted. Exactly the same as CTM Legal--another sock of Proderman?? Flami72 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Flami's speculation. But whatever the rationale and motivations of Prodirman and his socks, colleagues, and/or lawyers, Wikipedia is supposed to give a comprehensive, balanced view of each topic. The critical response to this musical was mixed, and we give examples of both positive and negative reviews of productions. So far, this article is far from comprehensive, but that is a reason to add more research, not to delete it. As for balance, we present examples of both the positive and negative professional reviews of this musical. Nothing here was libelous or even controversial. I think that all of the information currently appearing in the article is appropriate, although I would suggest that we change the descriptions of characters into a list of roles and the opening Off-Broadway cast. I certainly have not seen any rational explanation for deleting any of the other material in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear new editors

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project to make available public domain, free and fair use information that is sourced to Reliable sources, written in a Neutral tone, and focuses on the information that most readers would find important. If you would like to discuss any content here, feel free to use this Talk page, and someone will be very likely to respond to you and discuss how to improve the content. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clue (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://archive.is/20130217012245/http://www.voxmagazine.com/stories/2006/02/16/audiences-wont-leave-clueless/print-story/ to http://www.voxmagazine.com/stories/2006/02/16/audiences-wont-leave-clueless/print-story/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)