Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive 12

Tackling Awards

So I've noticed that the "awards" sections in several articles have turned into long, unsightly lists. In an effort to combat this, I've created a mockup of a table that could list awards. It's over in the Template Sandbox. Right now it's hard coded, but eventually, I'd like to make it a sort of infobox style "just type the fields in here" template. But first, I thought it would be best to find an effective visual format. So take a look at the two mockups (a generic example and an "in-use" example) and tell me what ya think! Happy Editing! --omtay38 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and alot tidier.Mark E (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That table is slick man, i want to use it in every article that has awards. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks wonderful. Thank you.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever actually decide whether we were going to start using this template in the articles? It looks pretty good to me, and it would certainly help get rid of those long awards lists, but it doesn't look like anything ever really came of this discussion. —MearsMan ^talk 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Some articles use it. If you like it, go ahead and use it in articles that you edit. I wouldn't disseminate it project-wide, because it doesn't seem that there is a consensus either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sherman Brothers

I think we need to take a look at Category:Songs by the Sherman Brothers. Every single song they ever wrote has an article. Are all of these notable? There is a bit of a WP:COI issue here, as well, as I believe that the creator is the grandson of one of the brothers. What should be done? —  MusicMaker5376 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy this looks like a big cleanup. From WP:MUS:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

My bet is that very few, if any of these, meet this criteria. However I bet there are one or two that do. All of these seem to have been started by the same person (under a few different ip's) but because the sherman brothers wrote so many different songs that were recorded by so many different people, each article has taken a life of its own. Part of me is tempted to say "just leave them alone, they're not hurting anybody." But most have very little important information on them.

My vote: go through, keep the songs that "have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists," move the other information to a Songs by the Sherman Brothers and then AfD the rest. Thoughts? --omtay38 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Happy New Year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Need a little help

Alright, this totals to something like 120 or so songs. I'm working on gathering information about them over here PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free to help (i.e. edit that page). Both Stub Length and Notable are completely personal judgement calls, just to get a quick sense of what we're dealing with. So if you've got nothing to do for a bit, feel free to go through these songs and list the creator, whether or not it's stub length, and if you think it's notable (i.e. worthy of inclusion). Thanks a bunch! --omtay38 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's quite a job; it's been in the back of my head for about 6 months, and, in those 6 months, more articles have been added. I can't work on it right now as I'm at work, but I'll definitely lend a hand. AWB might help -- at least you can load all of the articles and go through them a little faster. You have AWB, right?

Also, I think the easiest thing to do would be to prod them, but I feel the creator will remove the tag. We can, at least, try that before we bring them all to AfD. —  MusicMaker5376 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got AWB (it helped me get all the article names) but for just figuring all this stuff out it's not much help. It's just a lot of good, old fashioned, reading and typing. I would feel sort of bad proding these articles because of the sheer magnitude of this deletion. We could possibly be deleting more than 100 articles. Prod-ing that many seems to me like sneaking it under the radar. The AfD is one of the reasons i'm making this chart. That way I can go "here's a breakdown of all the articles, who made them, how big they are, and which are being moved." --omtay38 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my philosophy regarding prods is that, if no one bothered to look at the article during the week or so that the tag is there, then it's not serving much purpose as an article. There is a bot that notifies the creator that the article has been prodded (I can't vouch for its reliability). What may be beneficial is nominating one "token" article at AfD, prodding the rest, and noting that fact in the AfD nom. If anyone in the AfD conversation objects to the token article being deleted, they can remove the prods from the other articles and we can go from there. I know that the "AfD regulars" will object to having a group nom with 100 articles, as well will they object to having 100 separate nominations. Six of one.... —  MusicMaker5376 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well, let's see what the numbers turn out like when the list is finished and go from there. Perhaps the maybes could be AfD-ed and the No's could be Prod-ed? I just don't want us to be accused of trying to slip under the radar. By the way, you all rock for your help. --omtay38 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to run MelonBot to append one or more of: number of revisions, page length, number of contributors, presence of stub templates, wikiproject assessment? Happy‑melon 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that those statistics would be helpful, Melon. In fact, I already think that we have too many columns in the table by specifying whether the article is currently a stub. The fact that an article is a stub only means that Howard352 did not have that much at the tip of his tongue to say about a particular song, but it may actually be misleading: There are lots of notable subjects that only have a stub (or no article at all yet) on Wikipedia. The question is simply whether the song is notable enough for its own article, and our judging the answer to that subjective question depends on the facts that we know (or can find) about the song, which are probably incomplete. Basically, it boils down to whether we Musicals Project people have heard of the song, or whether Howard352 has provided sufficient notability information in the article. A more reliable way to do it, of course, would be to do some research on each song, but that project is too big, and Wikipedia policy is to shoot first and make the editor come up with a better article with clearer notability information. So, I agree that where there is not enough notability info in the article, we are justified in PROD-ing it. Personally, I would leave the "maybe" ones alone for now, and just put a notability tag on them to try to attract more editors. Then, next summer when Omtay is out of school, he can check on them again and see if anyone has improved the article. Of course, if there is info in an article that is being PROD-ed or AfD'd that is not already in the show's article, I would suggest moving the info into the appropriate article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

I broke the quote above into three criteria and placed them at the top of Omtay's page. We can refer to the criteria each passes by number. I'm noting that "is a standard" is not a criteria. Not sure how I feel about that. —  MusicMaker5376 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea

There's a Disney wiki, isn't there? Most of these could possibly be transwikied there. For example, by the criteria at WP:MUS, The Best Time of Your Life is not notable. However, there's a wealth of information there that should be kept. Why don't we just move them en masse? —  MusicMaker5376 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the The unofficial Disney Wiki, it's not very active, plus the "create an article" button gives me error. I agree, that information should be kept somewhere, at least to honor poor ol' Howard that's getting all his articles deleted.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea is definitely not to honor Howard.... —  MusicMaker5376 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Joke!--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Sorry. I'm becoming less and less able to recognize humor on WP! —  MusicMaker5376 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Album musical

Check out this new article, Album musical. There is also an article called concept album. I notice that the editor of the new article has changed a lot of links from concept album point to the new article. Do we need both articles? Is the information in both articles the right information, or should some info from one be in another? I'm not an audiophile, so I hope someone can take a look and see if any correction is needed on these. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I saw that too, and I'm not sure what to think. It seems like whatever this new article is talking about was sort of a precursor to the concept albums of the late 60s. I'd never heard of it, previously. It's kinda interesting, and they seem like separate ideas -- the album musical had casts, whereas concept albums had bands, usually. (Which would make JCS an album musical.) Not sure what to think, really. —  MusicMaker5376 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I created this page because "concept album" clearly does not cover the issue of original musicals created for records. All album musicals may be considered concept albums, but very few concept albums are album musicals. This was for many years (and still is) a genre unto itself. There are many other examples of album musicals (prior to 1969) that could be added to the page and none of them appeal to the same audience reading about rock albums tied together with a theme, etc. Even taking into consideration such albums as Jesus Christ Superstar and The Who's Tommy, the writers did not know when they created them that they would end up on the stage and, in fact, both had material added when they became stage shows. I hope you will not bury in the unwieldy concept page what I think is an interesting discussion on its own. Lumping album musicals in with all concept albums is like lumping all soundtrack albums onto the original cast album page. They are the same thing -- but they're not. Interestingly enough, You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," and yet it was completely ignored in the original article on You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, written by someone who knew little more than that there was a 1999 revival. This is a genre unto itself worth noting. I hope you agree. Sincerely, Rarmin (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to look at this article a little closer, I'm noticing that none of your references use the phrase "album musical". I'd like to see one source -- ANYWHERE, demonstrably published prior to April 8, 2008 -- that confirms that this is something other than something you just made up to create a difference between the concept albums before 1968 and those after. Otherwise, I'm taking this claptrap to AfD. —  MusicMaker5376 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, You're a Good Man Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," which was demonstrably published in 1966. While I have seen the term used elsewhere, much of my record collection (which includes almost all of the American original cast albums released since the birth of recording to the dawn of the compact disc age, and a great many since) is packed away where I can't get at it at the moment, so I can't offer other examples. However, even with no other examples, why do you refer to my use of the term album musical as "claptrap?" Would you prefer to lump Stan Freberg Presents The United States of America, Volume One and Judy Garland in The Letter with albums by Smashing Pumpkins and the Beach Boys? How useful is the term "concept album," when the editor of that article clearly states that its difficult to define the term? I truly do not wish to step on any toes here, especially considering your extraordinary efforts to expand the musical theatre articles, but it seems to me that you should be more interested in correcting the many factual errors on Wikipedia than in criticizing what I think is an intelligent discussion on a unique genre of recording. By the way, I see that Hair is a major interest of yours. Do you know the name of the publication from which Rado and Ragni lifted the words to "Frank Mills?" I've had a copy since 1966. And I was at the Aquarius Theatre, helping clean up the mess, on the day the L.A. production opened. I look forward to seeing you at the Hair reunion next month. By the way, my name is Robert Armin. What's yours? Rarmin (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"I can't find my sources," isn't going to cut it. Find one article, one book, ANYTHING that documents this phenomenon.

Simply because there are problems with the terminology and definition of "concept album" doesn't mean that you can pull a two-word marketing phrase from a long out-of-print album and create a Wikipedia article. Yes, there are problems with the terminology. If you're so important, write a book, get it published, and cite it in the article. The "factual errors" you cite are merely a difference of opinion: unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition of the genre. Yes, Stan Freberg and Judy Garland should be lumped in with Smashing Pumpkins and the Beach Boys, simply because there is no consensus -- not just among WP editors, but the genre in general -- as to what constitutes a concept album. That doesn't mean we INVENT a way, that means that we document the problem. This is blatant POV-pushing, original research, and, I'll say it again, claptrap.

Furthermore, since you seem to have so much information regarding Hair, feel free to add it to the article. Properly cited, of course. —  MusicMaker5376 04:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know where this anger is coming from. Kill the page if you so choose, although I think you should get a few other opinions first. I wasn't trying to one-up you on Hair -- just showing a mutual interest. I suppose mentioning that I have the original off-Broadway script in manuscript before the show went into rehearsals at the Public might be considered pushing it a bit. So I won't. But I hope we can find a more friendly way to discuss musical theatre. Most sincerely, Robert Armin (real name).Rarmin (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. I agree that there is no reason for anyone to make any accusations here, and I'd ask MusicMaker to please be polite. Of course, he never listens to my advice, but such is life on Wikipedia!  :) On the other hand, one of the important rules of Wikipedia is that people don't need to use their real names. Robert, please do take a look at the Hair article and see if you can add anything. Your knowledge would certainly be valued, and, as MusicMaker says, any new information would need to be referenced. Several of us have been working fairly seriously on Hair for about a year, and we think it's about ready to be nominated for advancement to GA class. Since we are describing the Broadway version of the script in the Synopsis section, we don't need to also describe the Off-Broadway version of the script. As for "album musicals", what we are looking for is a citation from a reliable source, like an article, or even a couple of reviews, that discusses "album musicals" and applies the term to the sorts of albums described in your article. Unfortunately, a Google search did not turn up a reference right away. The article is nicely written, but under-referenced. But even if the article were to be combined with the "concept album" article, your descriptions of the various albums would still be very useful. Wikipedia relies on information that can be verified from published sources. I read your above responses as merely saying that you can't get at your sources right now, but that you will look when you can get to them. There is no emergency. I think most Wikipedia editors are willing to wait a week or two before taking action on an article if an editor says, "hold on until I can get to my sources." Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send you a note on your own page to thank you for your supportive comments. But I'll do it here instead. Courtesy has not entirely died out, apparently. I gave my own name because I proudly stand behind what I contribute and will, graciously, accept corrections when they are warranted. I have submitted the question on "album musical" to a recognized expert in the field (other than myself) and will listen to his opinion on the matter. If there is another way to address this particular genre, so be it. I didn't coin the term, but I think it is a valid one. Fold the information into another page if that is the decision of whomever it is that makes these decisions. It seemed to me that this was a pretty good forum to offer my four decades of accumulated theatrical knowledge and, unless I am blocked in some way, I will continue to do so. As for Hair, I will wait until after the reunion next month before I disclose any "revelations" I may have. In 40 years, I've never heard or read the correct information on "Frank Mills." My best good wishes to you and MusicMaker5376.Rarmin (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I will actually be at the Hair reunion, so see you there. You can e-mail me if you would like my real name (There's an e-mail option on talk pages for people who have that option available). Decision-making on Wikipedia is by a process of WP:CONSENSUS tempered by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. No one editor can tell everyone what to do. Here at WP:MUSICALS, we have established and agreed on guidelines for Article Structure for the musicals articles. Of course, those can change if a good number of editors agree to change them. But everyone needs to follow the basic wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. We just can't add stuff to Wikipedia for which we cannot find a published source, no matter how interesting it is or how sure we are about it. By the way, programs and sleeve notes are OK, as long as they can be verified through a library. One thing is certain: you can't please all of the people all of the time, so "consensus" requires some compromise, and I don't always get what I want. But, little by little, we keep making the encyclopedia better. There is no doubt that there is much better coverage of musicals on Wikipedia now than there was even a year ago. There are a number of wonderful editors working on musicals who don't like to talk much on this page. Anyhow, you are a very good writer, and we certainly need more of those. If you are interested in Gilbert and Sullivan, also check out WP:G&S. It's a very small project covering just a few hundred articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Ssilvers comments. And I enjoyed reading your article. You are a good writer and I really hope you are able to find verifiable sources for the information presented. If you are not already a member of this project I hope you will join. I myself am a new member to the project but have edited on wikipedia for some time. It takes a while to get familiar with wikipedia policy and procedure and at times it can be frustrating. Ultimately, however, you will come to like the rules because they really do make wikipedia better. And most people on wikipedia are polite and respectful so don't worry about the musicmakers of the world. lolBroadweighbabe (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me apologize for any feathers I might have ruffled; I certainly didn't mean to. An explanation:
This concept album/rock opera/rock musical debate has been smoldering for about three years, and was one of the first I came upon in WP. I argued 'till I was blue in the face for about two weeks before realizing that the inherent problem was that everyone involved with the argument -- myself included -- thinks everyone else is wrong and is completely unwilling to compromise, so, since then, I've just left it alone.
As you can see from my first comment, when I first saw this article, I liked it. Seems reasonable. Then I read it, and saw that you chose to include Tommy in this genre. I don't want to re-open this resurgent can of worms, but that pissed me off, so I called it "claptrap". To me, "claptrap" is an inherently funny word -- two equally-weighted syllables, both starting with consonant blends, having the same vowel in the middle, and ending in "p". I should know from experience on both sides of the table that WP is the vortex at which all humor dies.
Then I felt that my credentials were being called into question on Hair. As is evident from my username, I was born 8 years after Hair opened on Bway. I won't be at the reunion because I have no one to reunite with. Though it does take place on my (and Tom O'Horgan's) birthday, and, frankly, I couldn't think of a better way to spend my 32nd. (And, truly, I meant to pull "If you're so important..." from my response. There was another line in there along those lines that I took out, but missed that one, and, once you hit that "Save page" button, it's all out there....)
So, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.... I may be rude, but I always admit when I'm wrong. (If that is the case, and, frankly, it doesn't happen that often.... [There's that vortex, again....])
Now, as for this article, I would say that the pertinent information could probably be merged into concept album, but with taking references to "album musical" out of the text and setting up a redirect at album musical. (Like I said, I haven't looked at the article for concept album in about three years, so if that's not the best idea, I'm open to suggestions.) If You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was, in fact, marketed as such, that can be mentioned -- but the only recordings I've been able to locate have been the original Off-Bway cast, orig Bway cast, and the '99 revival cast, so I would like to see a source. (I agree that that that article is written from a very revival-centric viewpoint. It's a show that is very dear to my heart, and I would love to see a much better article up there.) If, at some point, someone writes something regarding the phenomenon of the "album musical" (and, preferably, it gains some currency in the community -- existence is not notability), I would not be against recreating the article. But, frankly, we're probably a good 5-10 years away from that point.
And, again, if you have any information to add to Hair (musical), with the proper citations, it would be greatly appreciated. As it stands, the article seems to skip about 15 years of productions of the show, jumping from the movie to the early 90s. There probably weren't many productions of note in the "Me decade" of the 80s, but it feels like it should be fleshed out a little bit. Also, if you happen to have any personal photos from the production that you wouldn't mind licensing under the GFDL, that would be great. I'm in the process of writing Dagmar, the staff photographer of the production, but I wouldn't be surprised if she might not be willing to do so. And, if you have a source for the origination of "Frank Mills", I'm all about it -- it's my favorite song in the show (I used it as my Facebook status yesterday). I'm not sure where we could fit it into the article, but there's very little in the article about the creation of the show -- my guess is that it's been lost to both antiquity and, erm, clouded memories. The article is coming along rather nicely, but it still has a ways to go.
So, again, my apologies. I promised myself that I would stop writing these long diatribes on WP as no one wants to take the time to read them. Yet another promise to myself shattered in pieces.... —  MusicMaker5376 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm honored that your latest "diatribe" was so positive -- and directed at me. This place is feeling more warm and cuddly already. Thanks.Rarmin (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the Album Musical page. I have attempted to add even more clarification to the genre. I think it addresses some of MusicMaker's feelings about rock musicals being incorporated and makes it clear that there is no one term for the genre, even though the genre clearly exists. Thanks. Rarmin (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is not specifically in the area of the Musical Theatre project, but I just noticed the entry "gapless albums." This is a bizarre category that seems to exist primarily because of a feature created for the Ipod. A "gapless" album seems to be any recording in which the tracks crossfade into each other. Isn't any unedited "live" album automatically a gapless recording because of the applause leading into the next track. The first CD of "Phantom of the Opera" was, theoretically, gapless because the label didn't put in any track breaks on the disks. I haven't heard any of the recordings listed on the "gapless albums" page, but I would bet that most (if not all) have individual track numbers. I certainly have no objection to the existence of the "gapless albums" page (even though absolutely no other album page links to it), but it seems that there is a far more distinct genre of "album musical" than there is a "gapless album." Please do not take offense at these comments (as I know you had nothing to do with that page), but it does highlight the inexactitude of defining any type of recording.Rarmin (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your issue should be raised at the Albums project. However, there is also a rather good article on gapless playback. This isn't a new idea -- gapless recordings have been around forever. Because of the nature of compact disks and iPods, it makes it much, much easier to have a gapless recording that can still be tracked. Many of the albums on gapless albums came out long before CDs (Dark Side..., etc...). On vinyl, if you wanted to play a specific song on a gapless recording, you just had to guess. A song list would be okay, as the songs were individual compositions, but you couldn't track them as you can now. Having individual track numbers doesn't necessarily mean that there's a gap. The article at gapless albums is crap, I'll give you that. It should probably be moved to List of gapless albums. —  MusicMaker5376 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know there's a better page on the subject. I was using the gapless albums page as my sole reference. You're right -- there were gapless LPs for many years. A few of them actually were able to leave visual gaps in the vinyl even though the needle moved directly to the next track (especially in radio transcriptions), but it wasn't a common practice. Hope you get a chance to review my changes on the album musical page. I think it addresses a few of your issues. Rarmin (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Album musical is this a real genre?

There had been a discussion about Album musical awhile ago that you can read at the top of this page. I don't think that the editor had convinced most here that such a thing exists. I have put a dispute tag on the article. Would people please comment at the talk page there? Thanks! It may be a nice essay about something that doesn't really exist in the industry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The image of "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown" does say that it's an "Album Musical". I don't know if that's enough to coronate it an entire genre, but there it is.... — MusicMaker5376 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, do you think we should remove the tags at the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm really not sure. Frankly, I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to forget about this article! It has citations, but nothing that expressly states that these are called "album musicals". Should we see what WP:ALBUMS has to say? — MusicMaker5376 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Musicals based on novels

It appears that someone has created this category as a subcat of Category:Musicals. I think this is something we had discussed previously, but I'm not sure if we came to any determination. With the demise of Category:Musicals by nationality, perhaps this method of categorization should be explored: we have Category:Musicals based on films; should we add Category:Musicals based on poems, Category:Musicals based on real-life events, Category:Musicals based on short stories, Category:Musicals based on plays, Category:Original musicals, and, of course, my favorite one-article category, Category:Musicals based on paintings. Any thoughts? — MusicMaker5376 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you forgot Category:Musicals based on comic strips, Category:Musicals based on operas, and Category:Musicals based on musicals. I suppose such a system might work. However, instead of emphasizing the cultural relevance and importance of musical theatre, it would instead emphasize the original source material. I don't know if it would be a very valuable addition. In order to be effective, every musical would have to be catagorized according to the system. Currently there are about 13 musicals in Category:Musicals based on novels. They look lonely. MarianKroy (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm down for comic strips and operas, but are there musicals based on musicals? And, yes, those 13 look lonely, but there are more, and it's relatively easy work using AWB.

As for applicability, personally, I think it would help tremendously for someone doing a paper on, say, musicals based on poems. I don't necessarily think that Category:1976 musicals "emphasiz[es] the cultural relevance and importance of musical theatre", either.... — MusicMaker5376 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the idea of these categories, and I think they would be both interesting and helpful. I would just suggest we make sure we have an adequate number of shows that would fall under the category before it's created. If there are only going to be one or two shows listed, the category probably isn't needed. —MearsMan ^talk 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Musicals based on paintings" was more-or-less a joke. SITPWG can just as easily be categorized in Category:Musicals inspired by real-life events. I've got a list going below. Let's add to, subtract from, and reword as necessary. — MusicMaker5376 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW: the tree would be structured as such: Category:Musicals → Category:Musicals by source material → all of these. — MusicMaker5376 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Musicals based on musicals was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I believe there was a 1958 musical called Say, Darling about the creation of The Pajama Game. Crazy for You is based on Girl Crazy but has a revised plot and popular Gershwin songs added. I believe there have been other similar works using some songs and plot structure from musicals long-forgotten by the general public. There have also been some ill-fated musical sequels. I can think of Bring Back Birdie, Annie Warbucks, and Annie II, and I know there are others. Andrew Lloyd Webber is currently working on a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera, and Stephen Schwartz is working on a sequel to Wicked. Hypothetically, these could be classified as Category:Musicals based on musicals. What does everyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianKroy (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking that they should probably only be in one of these categories at a time. Something like Annie Warbucks would be more properly in Category:Musicals based on comic strips, and many of the sequels you mentioned are, in fact, based on already extant novels.

I was thinking about Crazy for You, but Say, Darling would just as easily be classified in Category:Musicals inspired by real-life events. Think we should scrap Musicals on musicals? If we find a great need for it, we can always create it down the road. — MusicMaker5376 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Music Maker, I agree that just sorting musicals by year doesn't really address their historical significance. I think I'm in favor of the newly proposed system. Is it ok to add musicals to the different categories? MarianKroy (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some sort of consensus on what they should be, first. If the wording of them is okay with everyone. — MusicMaker5376 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Musicals based on films
• Category:Musicals based on novels
• Category:Musicals based on poems
• Category:Musicals inspired by real-life events
• Category:Musicals based on short stories
• Category:Musicals based on plays
• Category:Original musicals
• Category:Musicals based on comic strips
• Category:Musicals based on anime and manga
• Category:Musicals based on operas
• Category:Musicals based on religious traditions
• Category:Musicals based on secular traditions

Maybe combine Musicals based on operas and musicals? Comic strips and other media? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What other media? If it's substantial, it should probably have its own cat. — MusicMaker5376 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have so many cats? Why not combine novels, poems and short stories? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that doesn't help someone who wants to research musicals based on novels. Categories aren't supposed to be simply a way to group things, they're to aid research. If someone wants to research novels, poems, and short stories, they can look at all three cats. — MusicMaker5376 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine if someone wants to remove Category:Musicals based on musicals. I suggested it, but I'm not loyal to it by any means. If someone's particularly fond of it, though, I guess it can stay. MarianKroy (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, and added "religious traditions". There are quite a few Biblical musicals, but I didn't want to keep it to just Judeo-Christianity.... — MusicMaker5376 13:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we rename novels to books to allow for something like How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying or keep it focused on novels and let H2S go uncategorized? — MusicMaker5376 13:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The other day I noticed the categories Category:Biblical musicals and Category:Musicals based on the Gospels. I do like your idea of the all-inclusive "religious traditions" category, though. Should these already existing categories be modified so that they work better with this idea? Also, I don't have much of a preference on the novel vs. book issue... I think "book" would obviously be more inclusive, which is something I'm generally in favor of, but I can also understand why we might want to keep it focused on novels. While I'm on the subject, do we have a category under which musicals based on short stories, such as Guys and Dolls, would fall? —MearsMan ^talk 07:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, how about a category based on legends, myths, or fairy tales? I haven't quite fleshed the idea out, and I'm not sure how many musicals might fall under it, but I think things like Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (musical), Camelot (musical), Once Upon a Mattress, Into the Woods, Bat Boy the Musical, or even Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (musical) might fit (Seven Brides might be a bit of a stretch, but it is based on a film that was based on a short story that was based on a legend)? —MearsMan ^talk 07:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had gotten rid of "Biblical musicals" and "Based on Gospels" is definitely a new one....

I like the idea of legends and myths. Maybe, since we're considering "religious traditions", we add Category:Musicals based on secular traditions? (And short stories is #5 up there....)

I'm still up in the air about novels/books.

We need to be careful on a couple of thing, however. I think we need to categorize these by what they were DIRECTLY based upon -- meaning whatever is in the infobox. IE: Seven Brides would be based on a film. Sweeney Todd is technically based on a play. Or can they be cat as both? — MusicMaker5376 16:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the secular traditions category. I was having trouble thinking of what we might call such a category, but I think that name would work quite well. I also think that the categorization of the articles is something worth discussing. If we wanted to keep it limited to what a musical is directly based upon that would be fine with me, but it might cause a bit of confusion or difficulty in a few situations. For example, Legally Blonde (musical) states that the show is based on both the novel and the film, so in a situation like this I would think it would fall under both categories. Also, High Fidelity (musical) is predominately based on the novel and not the film, although I would imagine that most people would associate the show with the film and that relatively few people out there are even aware of the novel. In a situation like this I think the novel category should definitely be included, but should the film category be listed as well? —MearsMan ^talk 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's no more discussion to be had about these, I think we can start implementing them. — MusicMaker5376 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's get started on this. It looks like everyone has had adequate time to have their say about this, and if we run into any bumps along the way we can always come back here for further discussion. —MearsMan ^talk 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good! MarianKroy (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've crossed the Rubicon and started to work with a few of these, so feel free to lend a helping hand if you feel so led. :-) —MearsMan ^talk 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the already existing Category:Musicals based on anime and manga. I've gone ahead and added it to the list above, but if anyone has any objections to the category we could discuss changing/deleting it. —MearsMan ^talk 01:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about those. Generally, I think it was decided way back that they're better handled by the Anime project, and we don't tag them. We can tag the category, though, as it would be part of our tree. I wonder if we should specifically disclaim those articles in our scope? — MusicMaker5376 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at On the Town (musical), which is based on a ballet, and I was wondering if anyone knew of any other musicals like this. Should we consider creating a Category:Musicals based on ballets? —MearsMan ^talk 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reality TV

Question: Do articles on reality shows that cast leading roles in stage musicals, such as How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?, I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series), Any Dream Will Do (TV series), Grease: You're the One that I Want!, and Legally Blonde The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods, fall under the scope of this project? I noticed that the recently created Legally Blonde article is not listed as part of the project at the moment, but the other four are, and I began to wonder if this had ever been discussed in the past. —MearsMan ^talk 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that they do fall under our scope. First, there are not that many of them, and second, they usually concern revivals of important musicals. So, especially if a member of our project contributes to these articles, they may as well bear our banner as well as those of whatever other projects they fall under. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've worked quite a bit on the three BBC ones (Maria, Joseph, Oliver), and always approached them from the point-of-view of the musical, rather than as reality TV programmes... There's nothing to stop them belonging to both WP:TV and WP:MT - the two projects bring different knowledge and interests to the article. -- Dafyd (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hair (musical) (again....)

As far as I can tell, we're about two paragraphs away from Hair (musical) being ready for WP:FAC (one on the music being used as protest music in the 60s and one on the show's effect on B'way). I would really appreciate some fresh "theatre eyes" on the article. If you get a chance -- and you would really need some quality time; it's a long one -- please stop by the article and leave some constructive criticism on the talk page. And, if you have access to sources for the two paragraphs I mentioned -- or if you think the article needs anything else and you have the sources -- by all means, add it! Thanks in advance! (BTW: If it passes FA, it would be this project's first real FA. We have others that carry our tag, but weren't really worked on by members of the project....) — MusicMaker5376 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot synopsis references

I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but a quick look at the article reminded me of a question I had. What is our project's stance on providing references for the plot synopsis of an article? Almost all musical theatre articles I've seen provide no source information for the plot section unless there's a direct quote used or something like that. However, when I was nominating a theatre article I wrote on The Voice of the Turtle (play) for DYK they asked me to go in and cite my sources for the synopsis because this is apparently the standard policy of that project. I've also noticed that A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant lists its sources in the synopsis section, and even though we didn't really work with this article, it is the only show in the project to have reached FA status. Obviously I'm not suggesting we remove the synopsis from all articles that don't cite their sources, but I'm just wondering if this is something that we need to be working on in the future. Additionally, if we decide this is something we need to do it would be important that we reference the Hair article before nominating it. —MearsMan ^talk 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need refs in the plot synopsis section. That should be a summary, in one's own words, of the action of the musical, based on the script. Although there are a few plot summaries in Wikipedia that have references, we would have very few plot synopses if they had to be referenced! Of course, if the musicals had various versions, you should say which version of the script the synopsis is based on, and then describe major differences among versions. We *do* have several GA articles, and the GA reviewers have not had a problem with the synopses. Also, other projects, like the G&S project have FA articles and synopses without refs. I don't know who at DYK asked you for refs on a synopsis, but I think he/she was clearly wrong and just didn't have experience with theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hair (musical) does mention at the end of the synopsis that it's taken from the B'way script. In general, I agree with SS -- I don't think it needs to be sourced. If there were several, widely-differing synopses between productions, it should be noted which production the synopsis reflects. I think that, where that's applicable, we are currently doing that. If someone along the line asks for the synopsis to be referenced, just do it. Even if you're just citing the liner notes of the CD. Places like MTI and Tams usually have synopses online, too. I think it's a stupid request, but easily fixed.... — MusicMaker5376 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists

Looks like Wicked cast lists has been AFDed. Cue a lot of list-adding to the main Wicked article. Could I ask you all to be vigilant, please?

I was going to say that this has potential repercussions for other musical cast lists, but I can't find many others (I'm sure there used to be more). List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members is the only one I can find...

EDIT: Oh, also Billy Elliot the Musical casts, Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists, List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts

-- Dafyd (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's Billy Elliot the Musical casts, too. — MusicMaker5376 18:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone recreated the Wicked cast lists article at List of Wicked cast members.... —MearsMan ^talk 05:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it as G7 -- speedy as recreation of deleted material. — MusicMaker5376 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 518 of the articles assigned to this project, or 28.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any interest in this? It might be helpful for editors who are looking for things to do.... — MusicMaker5376 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it has the potential to be helpful, and I certainly don't think it would hurt, so why not? —MearsMan ^talk 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have this handled, no? — MusicMaker5376 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We are set up to assess using the new "C-Class", but, basically, ALL B-class and Start Class articles need to be looked at to see if they now should be put under C-Class. I suspect that most of our B-class articles ought to be transferred to C-class. I did this exercise for the G&S project, but I do not have the time to do it for musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

July Roll Call

In response to your roll call message, the question of whether I'm a member of this Project is more complicated than "yes" or "no." As long as I edit on WP, musical theater will be one of my main subjects. However, I am editing far less frequently than I have in the past, and can't guarantee that I'll be devoting time to major rewrites or research projects anytime soon. I consider myself a member of the project, but if you wish to prune me, that's certainly your right. I sometimes think the whole concept of WikiProjects skirts uncomfortably close to WP:OWN at times, anyway, especially when one or two people are the main movers and shakers of the project. Happy editing. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 10:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(This is in response to a roll call message that I began sending out, then AWB took a crap on me and I stopped and reverted them all.)

To Chris, I'm sorry you feel that way. We're not going to "prune you" just because we want to -- we don't want to. We want you to feel like an active member of the project. I'm just trying to figure out who in our participants list are actively editing. You apparently are.

And, in defense of the "one or two people who are movers and shakers" (which, I can't help but take as a swipe at me personally, as the phrase "movers and shakers" was coined in the poem from which my username comes...), again, I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm not sure what I ever did to make you feel that way. But, quite frankly, we're all big boys and girls here. If there's a problem with the way things are done around here, by all means, bring it up. — MusicMaker5376 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not assume that any "swipe" was meant. I have worked with both of you in the past and found you both to be excellent, knowledgeable and thoughtful editors. Chris, we certainly don't intend to assert OWNership of any articles, we are just trying to improve the coverage of musical theatre on Wikipedia. MusicMaker has been active in organizing our efforts to get articles written on musicals/creators/actors that didn't have articles, and helping the participants in this project to reach consensus on "suggested" guidelines for article structure so that there isn't complete chaos - just some chaos! LOL! It's fine if you only can contribute occasionally these days - any help is appreciated! MusicMaker, why didn't you complete the roll call? It seems like time to do it, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely time to do it, but AWB was simply uncooperative. It kept telling me that I had a new message, but did not, and it wouldn't do anything but tell me that I had a message -- it was a whole message chaos thing.... The roll call template is in the template sandbox if you feel like tweaking some language. — MusicMaker5376 14:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rent — School Edition

Is this addition to the Rent (musical) article notable enough for inclusion? Normally I'm quick to revert any edits that add information about high school or other minor productions to the articles, but I thought I'd better be safe and get a second opinion on this one, seeing as it does appear to be a bit more notable than most. —MearsMan ^talk 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I just looked at the cited source, and while it does seem to support most of the information given, I saw no mention of this being the second high school production of the musical, which is probably the one thing that could make this production notable enough for inclusion.—MearsMan ^talk 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. Most of the "first high school" or whatever is usually a director trying to make their students feel special. And second things aren't notable. — MusicMaker5376 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A high school production could only be notable if it is a huge national event with very extensive major news coverage because of some really unique circumstance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernadette Peters

It seems to me that this article is about ready for a GA nom. Can someone please look at the article and give comments at the talk page and/or contribute to the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks ready; didn't leave me with any questions. I made a couple of tweaks. — MusicMaker5376 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it for GA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Robin Hood (musical)

Dear everyone: What do you make of this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. Someone has been creating many of these; I usually just prod them. — MusicMaker5376 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was more or less going to say the same thing. I did a few different google searches, trying to find something on the supposed musical, but nothing really turned up but the article in question. I also took a look at the user who created the article's talk page and saw that they tried to create a similar article, Robin Hood (2006 musical), just a few weeks back, and that ended up getting deleted. I'd say delete under the reasoning MM provided. —MearsMan ^talk 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently A7 doesn't apply to musicals. I've prodded the article, but, in all honesty, it should probably be taken to WP:AFD so that if it gets recreated, it can be speedied. — MusicMaker5376 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I just wanted to introduce myself and also commit myself to your effort! Please throw some work at me - I am ready and willing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treditor200 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, Treditor200! We certainly appreciate all the help we can get. If you're looking for ideas on where you can help, try checking out the to-do list on the project's main page, or keep an eye on this talk page to get an idea of what other editors are working on at the moment. —MearsMan ^talk 00:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much for the welcome and tips! --Treditor200 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! I always suggest that people try to improve our stubs (especially by adding plot summaries). All of our stubs are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stub-Class_Musical_Theatre_articles Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spring Awakening (again…)

Sorry to bring this up again, but is there something more we can do about the non-notable replacement actors that are repeatedly being added to the article? The bulk of the last 50 edits is an IP adding a replacement and one of us later removing it, and frankly this is getting old quite quickly. The IP address keeps changing, so I don't know if a block would really work (or if we would even be granted one, for that matter), but does anyone else think a semi-protect might be appropriate? —MearsMan ^talk 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection. Dunno if it will go thru. — MusicMaker5376 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request denied: "Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Close, but looks to be manageable without protection. Just revert, warn, and report at ANI. If the level increases, re-report." — MusicMaker5376 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a shot. Thanks for putting in the protection request MM, my internet has been acting up lately and it's taking me forever to do anything. I guess we'll just need to be persistent, keep an eye on the article, and hope they eventually decide to give up or move on to something else. —MearsMan ^talk 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that there are several different people doing this. After a couple years, when the show is no longer "new", I think the amount of cruft will decrease. Until then.... Thanks for keeping an eye out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Aida

The Complete libretto link on Aida's page is dead. However after visiting the main page for that specific link, I found out it is temporarily closed. Should I delete the link or should we just monitor that link? Treditor200 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, unless the page being linked to is provided by the copyright holder, we're not supposed to link to a copyright violation. I'd lose it. — MusicMaker5376 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If a libretto exists on the internet (unless the libretto has been posted to the internet in violation of the copyright laws), I don't know of any reason why an External Link to it can't be listed at the bottom of the article. You just can't copy and paste the libretto into Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean. If it's online provided by someone other than the copyright holder, odds are it's a copyvio and we shouldn't link to it. Generally, if it's still under copyright, the rights holder isn't going to let some third party post the libretto. If it's a legal copy then, yes, there should be a link. — MusicMaker5376 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the site it's posted on I can't believe for a second that it's legal. So I think I should go forward with deleting it? Treditor200 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on it, and the link seems dead anyhow. What website was it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Omigod you guys...

Over the past week or so a couple articles related to Legally Blonde (musical) have been getting a lot of attention, most of which is coming from anonymous editors. Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists has seen numerous additions/removals of actors from the cast lists to the various productions, and while I've been doing my best to keep an eye on things I can barely tell at this point whether the edits are constructive or acts of vandalism (the entire article is poorly source). Additionally, Legally Blonde The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods has been getting plenty of attention, especially on Monday nights after new episodes of the show air. While there certainly seems to be less edit warring going on here, the page has still been the target of considerable vandalism, and things got so bad that I had to request semi-protection about a week back (protection was granted for three days). As I said, I've been doing the best I can with these articles, but they're poorly monitored and my current internet connection has been preventing me from keeping as careful a watch over them as I would like. If any of you would be willing to help me keep an eye on them, it would be greatly appreciated. —MearsMan ^talk 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the cast list article can probably be Afd'd. If you look above, one cast list went thru. I don't really know what purpose those cast list articles serve, other than keeping the replacement info off the main article. I will, however add both to my (prohibitively large) watchlist.... — MusicMaker5376 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a useful function in itself. If having them keeps the cruft out of the real article, I don't mind using Wikipedia's storage capabilities as a pacebo to placate the crufters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly put them on my watchlist as I have been editing via the recent changes and random article link on the sidebar for quite a while now. Treditor200 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have no problem watchlisting them myself. Always good to have an extra pair of eyes watching over. -Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help everyone! —MearsMan ^talk 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked out the legally blonde tour cast list and all of the names minus a few have been removed by a random IP. I checked through as many broadway sites and even tried google as much as I could stand to find a cast list. However, much to my surprise one has not been publicized yet. Has anyone seen an official cast list or does anyone know if coleen sexton has been confirmed for brooke wyndham? thanks! Treditor200 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching these articles, but I have no idea which names should be in there, so I'm not a lot of help.... — MusicMaker5376 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem with the cast list article. I tried my best to source the names that I could, but I was unable to find anything for the vast majority of the names listed there, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the information is completely untrue. I noticed that someone proded the article a few days ago, but an IP keeps removing it. I'm beginning to think that unless we can really clean up the article and remove any unsourced information it might be time to consider an Afd. I personally have nothing against the cast list articles (like Ssilvers said, they do help keep the cruft out of the main article), but I do think they become problematic when we're unable to verify the information presented in them. —MearsMan ^talk 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

67.189.232.190 has deleted the entire production section on the Legally Blonde (musical) page. I'm having trouble undoing it due to intermediate edits. Can anyone help with this? MarianKroy (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done In a situation like that, just go back to the last version that had the deleted section, click "Edit this page", and copy the section that was deleted. Then just go back to the current version and put it back in. — MusicMaker5376 14:53, 22 July 2008

(UTC)

Thanks for your help and the advice! MarianKroy (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article, Legally Blonde (musical), has been semi-protected. — MusicMaker5376 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Musical theatre

I disagree with this edit to our flagship article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musical_theatre&diff=225292044&oldid=224468068 What do others think. Should it be reverted? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I've heard people say "stage musical" before, but the addition seems to define "stage musical" and "musical" in a manner inconsistant with common usage. It doesn't really "flow" with the article either. MarianKroy (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. I think it's a true statement, but I think it's splitting hairs. I think that when one refers to a "musical", it's usually understood whether they mean a stage musical or musical film. At least, that's true when you're a musical theatre buff. Perhaps the unindoctrinated need it specified? In the spirit of stating the obvious, maybe it's something that should be added? (Though not formatted horrendously as that is....) — MusicMaker5376 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make a compromise edit, but the editor has added back a statement about musical films, which I don't think belongs in the musical theatre article's introduction. We may need to discus musical films somewhere in the article (we already refer to them), but I think this gives them too much prominence. Please take a look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the musical films statement is irrelevant, especially in the lead section. Basically, it says that a musical on film is a "film musical" and a musical on a stage is a "stage musical". MarianKroy (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories again

I notice that Mears Man is adding the category for West End Musicals to shows that had a West End run, even if the opened on Broadway (and, I assume vice versa). I thought that the category was supposed to be for debuts on Broadway/WE, not for subsequent productions? Just checking with you cat mavens. I have no opinion about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's what had been decided -- only in one or the other -- but I can't remember why. I don't know if I have a feeling either way. — MusicMaker5376 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about all the category chaos this past day or so! Before I started adding Category:London West End musicals I was wondering if it was for original runs or any show that played there, so I checked the category itself and the page says "Major musical theatre productions that have appeared in London West End theaters." Naturally, I took this to mean that the category was for any show that had played on the West End. If you want, I can try to go back through and remove that category from the pages I've added it to, although I would suggest changing the language on the category page itself. Also, while we're talking about it, does anyone object to Category:Off-Broadway musicals and Category:Broadway musicals being used on the same page? I know this one's a bit different, but I figured it would be best to ask now and save us trouble in the future. —MearsMan ^talk 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were researching West End musicals, would you want to know quickly which ones premiered there, or would it be more useful have a list of all the ones that ever played there? Let's have more opinions. Whatever is decided, I agree that the category descriptions should be clarified. As to Off-Broadway shows that later went to Broadway (or in a couple cases to the West End), I'd agree with listing both, as the bigger production would be like a new debut, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a "new debut" kinda sounds to me like losing your virginity twice, but I think we can have Off-Bway and Bway. — MusicMaker5376 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Shows

I just added cast lists, according to Broadway World, to 9 to 5 and A Tale of Two Cities. I also added show logos to each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treditor200 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the articles! I just worked a bit with the image sizes and captions to the pictures you added, but they still might need a bit of tweaking. —MearsMan ^talk 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful to mention that the cast is announced or scheduled. Anything can happen between now and opening night. Look at Xanadu. The male lead was injured and replaced during previews. Also, Broadway productions can be cancelled prior to opening. So, it isn't the Broadway cast, it's just the announced cast, scheduled cast, slated cast, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Legally Blonde - The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods

The descriptions of each episode are most likely copyvios. Of where, it's difficult to tell, but the same lines appear a few times throughout the Internet. If someone wants to attend to them, it would probably be a good idea. — MusicMaker5376 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole descriptions? If no one can deal with it (I haven't seen the musical), it might have to be G12'd. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The descriptions of the episodes are one-sentence blurbs in a box; the whole article isn't copyvio. There's a lot worth saving. ("Worth saving" in this instance, of course, being relative....) — MusicMaker5376 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I assumed you meant the whole page was copyright infringement. In that case, someone familiar with the plot could try and rewrite it? I'm worried about messing it up if I try and fix it, as I'm not good with articles whose subject I'm not familiar with. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the copy vio. But the article is so listy! All those lists about things that happen in each episode could be combined with the descriptions of the episodes in the boxes, IMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It could, but then the article would be one big box. — MusicMaker5376 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No boxes at all. Check it out! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Ssilvers and good job. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Omigod! You're most welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great job! The page looks a heck of a lot better now than it did! Sorry I wasn't on earlier to help out with the article... my internet connection has been acting up all day. —MearsMan ^talk 05:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hairspray (musical): Comments please

One of our enthusiastic editors, Mizu, has removed the Principal roles table, which I know several editors had worked on pretty hard. There is a table like this in West Side Story, Wicked and a number of other musicals. I don't love them myself, but I think there should be a consensus before an editor just deletes a whole section. Mizu, would you start off the discussion, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure.

I know editors worked hard on that box, and I apologise sincerely if it appeared that I was intentionally wrecking their efforts, or anything of the like. That being said, I'll note that much of the way I edit is due to watching other experienced users doing the same thing with higher-class articles. I like using examples to legitimise my contributions, so I'll provide one here (also C-class, like Hairspray): Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (musical). I used to contribute to the table that was there some time ago, but it was removed, and after discussion I decided it wasn't needed since we had a cast listing anyway. I'm generally not too firm about this, so if many fellow members disagree with this action I'll gladly revert it (or let you do so).

Can you share the discussion that was had at that article with the other editors in the project? If enough people agree, we ought to clarify our article structure guidelines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be somewhere in the page history of the aformentioned article, but perhaps I'm missing it (I have yet to find it, though it was probably around Feb or Mar)? Yes, it's mainly an edit-summary conversation. ;-) I'll continue looking, in the meantime I'll get to the other comments! Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Also, while I'm here, I'd also like to hear community inpur input regarding this discussion. Cheers, and thanks in advance. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think lists are evil. I was of the persuasion that, if the main characters aren't all mentioned in the synopsis, then a character list is okay. On the other hand, I feel that if the main characters aren't mentioned in the synopsis, then the synopsis is likely faulty. On the other hand (yes, I have three hands), I also feel that there are some readers (remember them?) out there who don't want to read an entire synopsis, and a character list with descriptions allows them to get the basic idea of the show without reading the sometimes-quite-lengthy synopsises that can crop up 'round here. So, basically, I don't think they're always necessary, nor do I think they should be removed without discussion. (How's that for a completely out-of-character lack of opinion from MusicMaker?) — MusicMaker5376 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I think you've covered all bases! I have come around to the conclusion that if the editors of an article have created an annotated character list, as long as they keep it short, I wouldn't delete it. If it's wordy and has a lot of plot in it, I shorten it with a note that the plot details should go in the synopsis. As for charcter lists that show original cast members (and replacements') names, these are often duplicate information that is also stated in the productions section, but again, I don't delete it, except that I always delete chorus names, swings, and non-bluelinked replacements. As for technical crew names, I think the production section should name director, choreographer and designers (especially those with blue-linked names). Also, if the orchestrator is bluelinked, I leave it. But I don't think we need to name the music director/conductor (unless it is the composer or orchestrator and is bluelinked), since broadway shows change conductors more frequently than Elle Woods changes shoes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Us musical directors never get our due.... It's a shame, really: what's a musical without music? (That was meant to be rhetorical, but, 10 points to Gryffindor for whomever said "a play"!)

Mizu, I noticed when you removed the character list, you noted "per MOS". I'm wondering what section of MOS you were applying? It's possible that I'm not terribly acquainted with the proper section, and I may well be in the wrong.... — MusicMaker5376 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're in the right, and I realise community consensus overrides anything I've learned elsewhere. Would any of you two kindly find a trout (or two, however many this stupid action by an experienced editor merits) to slap me with? :P In all seriousness, though. At this point I'll take the opportunity to revert my changes. I apologise for going against consensus as I've only been following the WikiProject closely for a month or so, therefore I'm not well-acquainted with discussions prior to my high activity. Many thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

No apologies (or dead fish!) necessary. WP:BOLD trumps everything, as far as I'm concerned.... — MusicMaker5376 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith, everyone. I think most of it is done (I reverted it), but if I missed anything, let me know! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary indeed: Your opinion is just as important as mine, but getting a consensus of opinion helps us all try to create a somewhat consistent style throughout the project. We have over 1,500 articles in the project (plus probably hundreds more untagged articles about people involved in musicals), and trying to get all the editors who work on them to do so with any degree of consistency is like trying to herd cats. But that's what a project is for - to try to develop consensus on style and to help each other deal with content issues. We'll never all agree on all the details, so I try to respect what other editors do, unless it disagrees with something that we have a consensus about. The good news is that articles are improving over time, and now we have some GA articles, a couple of FAs and are getting close to FA quality on a few others. As we create more high-quality articles, we will have more good examples of how things can be done. At the beginning of 2006, before Music Maker and a few other editors started working on musicals articles, the situation was pretty dire! And there was NO coverage at all of musicals prior to 1920. Now, we're cookin'! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And if you need more suggestions for monthly collaborations, do ask; I know millions that need some tender loving care (just see my userpage for some musicals I've seen—over sixty percent of those are under B-class!). Best regards, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

Little Shop of Horrors (musical) - help, please

Also, in Little Shop, Mizu has proposed deleting the section that shows the differences between the musical's plot and the 1960 film's plot. This is a reasonably well-written section, but it is not referenced, and Mizu interprets it as WP:OR. I feel confident that there must be some sources that discuss these differences, and so the section could be properly referenced, but I am going on an extended trip and cannot do the research. Can someone please address this? Thanks! In haste, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest re-reading WP:OR. As long as a secondary source states that there are differences between the original film and the resultant musical, examples from both primary sources are perfectly okay and within the bounds of policy. — MusicMaker5376 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a secondary source doesn't even have to say it. As long as a reasonably-educated person can see without any expert knowledge that they all died at the end of the original Little Shop and everyone's still on their feet at the end of the movie musical, a secondary source doesn't have to say it. — MusicMaker5376 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot synopses didn't have to be referenced through secondary sources. Isn't contrasting factual differences between two plots a logical extension of that decision? MarianKroy (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, because I've had a couple instances where I've written a section comparing the differences and had it reverted because of WP:NOR. Still, I'm obviously against consensus here, so I'll drop this and agree to disagree again. :-) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not really consensus, it's all in how you read WP:OR. The policy forbids one from presenting one's own argument; it doesn't forbid presenting one's examples from the primary source. I think WP:OR gets overused: sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Examples of differences between two incarnations of the same property are examples from primary sources used to bolster an argument (probably) presented elsewhere. From WP:OR:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

In this case, we're only making "descriptive claims": we're not analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, explaining, or evaluating. We're simply saying, "this happens here, but this other thing happens over here". If we were to use those examples to say that one form is better than the other, that would be OR (and POV), analysis and evaluative. If we use them to say that it proves that plants can't be trusted, that would be SYN. If we use them to say that Audrey's survival represents the author's belief in heaven, that would be interpretation. And so forth....

We have to use primary sources A LOT in this project, simply because the majority of our articles deal with explaining primary sources. As long as the interpretation and analysis of those sources are done by secondary (and, to an extent, tertiary) sources, giving examples from the source we're explaining doesn't run afoul of WP:OR.

(...and MM gingerly steps off his soapbox....) — MusicMaker5376 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A very good explanation, MM. I would add, however, that if you find a source that says, "The creators of the musical decided to cut out the character of the masochistic patient because...." then that would be even better. Then you could cite the source to explain why the musical omits the character, which is even more interesting to the reader than the mere fact that the change was made from the musical's source. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess my diatribe above should be tempered with, "...but the more secondary sources the better." — MusicMaker5376 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you. It all depends on how you read WP:NOR, and I guess I've been misreading it, but it's a little clearer now. Isn't LSoH our collaboration of the month? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of people have been misreading it (or, at least, overinterpreting it). I'm probably going to write an essay at some point.... — MusicMaker5376 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what's been going on with our collaboration of the month. It seems like a project that some people tried to get going back before I joined WikiProject Musical Theatre that never really got the attention they were hoping for. I did nominate LSoH as a collaboration candidate back in January when the article was in pretty bad shape and I noticed it was a previously considered (but rejected) collaboration of month. I don't know if it was ever made the project's "official" collaboration, although it has certainly been greatly improved since then (it actually has a plot synopsis now!). —MearsMan ^talk 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Our CotM has the tendency to fall by the wayside. No real reason, but it seems to be in direct relationship with the number of actual active editors. I kinda think that our collaborations have the tendency to find us, and we do relatively okay without the structure of the CotM. I know not everyone agrees with that, but those are my thoughts. I'm kinda surprised that I didn't even have LSoH on my watchlist, but there has been quite a bit of work done since I last saw the article. If we want to give the CotM a kick in the ass, lets go for it. — MusicMaker5376 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's practically already our unofficial collaboration, so let's just all start working on it. ;-) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just rename the CotM to CC -- Current Collaboration. That way, we don't have to give it a time limit, either. Once a bunch of us start working on an article, we can just leave a note here to see if anyone minds it being named our CC. That way, new editors will know what we're stridently working upon, and not get confused by the lack of thrust behind a CotM. Or is that too structured for us? — MusicMaker5376 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Actually, I like that idea a lot. It makes the process more natural, taking away the formality of that whole "nominate an article for CotM and then try to gain support for the nomination" scene. Not to mention that I think we'll be more willing to work on the collaboration this way, simply because the whole thing is less forced. Oh, and it cuts out the deadline, which is always a plus. I hate when it feels like WP has become yet another homework assignment for me.... But anyway, I don't see a problem with listing the current "pet project" under CC and switching it out every now and then as we move on to something new. It's a quick way for new editors to see what we've been working on, and I know I always get most fired-up about an article when I notice that a few other editors have taken an interest in it... I guess it helps knowing that I'm not going to be the only one working on the thing. —MearsMan ^talk 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Very much agree. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Shop of Horrors (musical) - COTM

Please watch the page. I just reverted a re-write of the synopsis that was overly long, referred to production aspects and otherwise did not conform to our guidelines for synopses. Perhaps there is something worth salvaging in there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for reverting those edits. I was in the process of weeding through the additions, trying to see if anything was salvageable when I noticed you had already removed the whole thing (same thing with the added film info). I'll go back and take another look at it just to make sure, but it appeared to be mostly cruft. —MearsMan ^talk 23:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I really have to say good job, SS. I've had LSoH watchlisted for a while now, but I'll keep an extra eye on it for now (and don't worry, I won't attack it!). —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The article needs more historical background about how it came to be written, produced and cast. It also needs a Response section that discusses the critics' reviews of the off-broadway production, the Broadway production and other major productions, and describes the box office and international success of the major productions of show and its astonishing success as a choice for amateur and school productions. It also could use a description of the major recordings and some analysis of the text and music of the show. For instance, how does the show fit into the genre of science fiction-horror rock musicals? Obviously, all of this requires research and referencing. Our article structure guidelines lay out pretty well what information could be helpful. Unfortunately, I'll be out of the country for most of August with limited access to the internet, but I look forward to seeing the new info when I return. I must say that it is wonderful to see so many energetic new members of the project. Welcome to Marian, Mears, Mizu... Hmmmm. An explosion of M's. By the way everyone, Bernadette Peters just got promoted to Good Article, and Elaine Paige made it to Featured Article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

M's of the world unite!

I think I'm going to be picking up a copy of the Wollman book (The Theater Will Rock). It's available on Amazon, and it probably holds a wealth of information on both Hair and LSoH.

Unfortunately, the carpal tunnel seems to be flaring up a lot more frequently lately, so I'm trying to keep my "typing for fun" to a minimum (so I can keep the piano playing/daytime job to a maximum...). I have an appt. with the neurologist tomorrow, and will probably be getting them operated upon sometime soon. I'll probably be keeping my contribs to copy edits and whatnot until I'm whole, and, as yet, I have no idea when that might be.

Also, our Article Structure is definitely a great springboard for what we're looking for in terms of articles, but there's no need to be a slave to it. Let it be a guide, not a master. Hair (musical) follows it to an extent, but it makes diversions as necessary, like combining the recordings into the musical analysis, it has a section on the themes explored and a dramatics section, etc. Look to the structure for ideas, but let the article develop as it will. — MusicMaker5376 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Honk!

Could use a blue pencil (and an infobox) if anyone is up to it.... — MusicMaker5376 05:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add one if I were familiar with the musical. I suggest stealing one from A Chorus Line (the infobox that is, you'll have to go to Office Max for a blue pencil) or another musical article with a box such as that one. If you need any formatting help though, that's what I'm here for. :-) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 06:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Clowns, The Musical!

...has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties can comment here. — MusicMaker5376 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MusicMaker, I think you forgot to create the AfD page. ;-) Clowns, The Musical!'s Afd template has its discussion page redlinked. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind—I know you did, but it's still not showing up. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE does that sometimes. Dunno why. — MusicMaker5376 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this project: Operettas

Greetings from the Opera Project. I see from the project page that:

* operettas - these form part of the WikiProject Opera, although if it is a grey area, there is nothing wrong with categorizing the work in both places

Perhaps we can clarify that the 'grey area' is specifically 'English-language' operettas, notably Broadway operettas? (See Category:English-language operettas.) German, French and Hungarian works don't prevent any problems - they come under Opera - and G&S has its own project.

IMO we should try not to overlap and double banner the articles because the style of editing - from the lead down to the references - is so different between the two projects. Thanks and best regards. --Kleinzach 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way to understand this topic is to think of tricky works. What about "Helen Goes To Troy" which was a Broadway show, originally based on Offenbach's La belle Helene, revised (twice) by Erich Wolfgang Korngold (once for the German stage, the second time for the Broadway stage). Or what about "Ah, Rosalinda!" which is a Broadway version of J. Strauss's Die Fledermaus? Or Blossom Time (arrangements of Schubert)? Personally I feel that all 3 of these belong to musical theatre, not operetta, basically because they're performed in English. I'm tempted to say that because they've all been performed on Broadway, that means they're musical theatre, but then opera has been performed on Broadway, and that doesn't make it any less opera. Just some thoughts. -- 03:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs)

None of these should be a problem. Offenbach's La belle Hélène is within the scope of the Opera Project, edited according to that style. Helen Goes To Troy should be a separate article, treated as a musical - as you recommend. Likewise Ah, Rosalinda!. Das Dreimäderlhaus (Blossom Time etc.) is a bit more complicated - see the article - because it's a pastiche pseudo-operetta, but even that article might benefit from splitting. " I'm tempted to say that because they've all been performed on Broadway, that means they're musical theatre" - Yes - if they started life on Broadway - I agree. --Kleinzach 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that this discussion should wait until Ssilvers (talk · contribs) has returned from vacation. I know it's a month, but this question has been in the air for two years. It can wait another few weeks. — MusicMaker5376 04:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed it with him. Incidentally we agreed on the removal of the Opera Project banner from most of the Broadway operas of Victor Herbert and Sigmund Romberg etc., hence I was surprised to see the text of the project page saying, "there is nothing wrong with categorizing the work in both places" which was exactly what we were trying to avoid. --Kleinzach 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As have I discussed it with him. Nonetheless, as he is the only member of this project with any knowledge whatsoever about operetta, I'd rather that he were part of this discussion. If we're trying to "draw a line in the sand", he should be part of the conversation. We'll wait, thanks. — MusicMaker5376 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, we'll not categorize or tag anything where there might be a question. — MusicMaker5376 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm just back. With respect to the operetta articles that the opera project wishes to banner and edit under its guidelines, I think that is fine, and we can leave the articles under their banner. Kleinzach objects to having both banners on those articles, and there does not seem to be much benefit in arguing about it. With respect to English-language operettas, the opera project seems to have little interest in the bulk of those articles and to be happy for us to edit them under our guidlines. Kleinzach has placed our banner on many of them and removed the opera project banner. I have been editing most of these under the musicals format, so it makes sense for them to bear the musicals project banner. MusicMaker, if you think that I should update our "scope" along these lines, I'd be happy to give it a shot. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now been a while since I raised this issue. I wonder where we are with this now - especially as it seems we don't have any fundamental differences about it? Best. --Kleinzach 02:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Knechtges

Dan Knechtges choreographed Xanadu (nominated for a Tony for this) and the 25th Putnam County Spelling Bee, among other shows. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Dan+Knechtges%22&fulltext=Search Anyone feel like doing an article on him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sound of Music

In the past few days, changes have been made to the synopsis of the musical. Can anyone verify whether the changes are correct? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Starlight Express Songs

Recently there have been pages added for various songs from Starlight Express, all from one editor. I know I don't have an objective view on this show, So I'm asking you guys... does this seems excessive? These songs don't have much of a life outside the show, apart from the title song getting recorded quite often. I don't see the notability myself, and it seems most shows don't have individual articles for each number in the show. Also, quite a lot of the information is inaccurate, or accurate to just one production. Should I try to improve all these articles, or are they better deleted and any useful information included in the main article for Starlight Express? Belle pullman (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem excessive. Even the title song, though recorded separately, never really appears outside the context of the musical or Andrew Lloyd Webber's wider catalogue (unlike, say, "No Matter What"). I'd be inclined to merge them with the main article. If you feel that makes Starlight Express to heavy or unbalanced, you could put them in, say, Songs from Starlight Express, like Songs from Les Misérables. -- Dafyd (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the 'songs from' idea. Mazz0626 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless a song is notable outside of the musical, it should not have a separate article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I really don't know my way around Wikipedia well enough. I don't know what to do! Could someone nominate these articles for deletion? Thanks! Belle pullman (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable Songs from Starlight Express - this one's already nominated - but it would seem to me that the others could all be merged onto this one?

Light at the End of the Tunnel (musical number)

Make Up My Heart

Only You (Pearl and Rusty)

A Lotta Locomotion

U.N.C.O.U.P.L.E.D.

Starlight Sequence

Starlight Express (song)

Category:Musicals based on television shows

Does anyone know what exactly happened to Category:Musicals based on television shows? It looks to me like it was supposed to be moved to something along the lines of Category:Musicals based on television programs based on this discussion, but instead it appears to have been outright deleted or moved to the wrong name (for some reason the discussion suggested that the category be moved to Films based on television programs, and my watchlist indicates that the category's talk page was moved to Category talk:Films adapted from a television series). Is anyone else able to make sense of what just happened, why it happened, or how to go about fixing it? —MearsMan ^talk 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't know. How many musicals are based on television shows? Certainly, we should figure out what happened to the category. However, do musicals based on television shows really need their own category? MarianKroy (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Big WP rule change! Date linking and formatting

I recently found out that Wikipedia has made a major change: No more linking of dates (unless the article is about the history of the date linked). See WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting. There is some kind of tool to de-link the dates and turn them into regular dates, like "April 5, 2008". This editor can explain how to delink dates in an article: User:Tony1. Gradually, the plan is to de-link dates in nearly all articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Musical Theatre

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus request: Bounce (musical)

This Stephen Sondheim musical is now being produced in New York by the Public Theater under the name Road Show. Are New York productions (even off-Broadway) considered definitive? If so, does this article need to be renamed to Road Show (musical)? --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Has it been rewritten at all? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't re-name it unless it moves to Broadway or runs for a year off-Broadway. I added a re-direct to the new name, and will disambiguate Road Show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about Musical theatre intro

Hello all. I found myself reading the section above about those undesirable edits to the Musical theatre article, so had a look at the article. I amended and fleshed out slightly the ancient Greek section. I have some concerns about the Introduction too, but wanted to discuss them here before attempting any edit. There are three things that strike me about this:

The emotional content of the piece – humor, pathos, love, anger – as well as the story itself, is communicated through the words, music, movement and technical aspects of the entertainment as an integrated whole. Since the early 20th century, musical theatre stage works have generally been called, simply, "musicals".

• Firstly, I'm not really sure what is meant by "the emotional content"; does it mean the emotional responses of the audience that the musical provokes? Or the emotional experience of the characters in the drama? Or the emotions of the author-composer that a piece is presumed to express? It doesn't have in-line citations, so it's a little hard to tell from where this idea has come. I tried re-arranging it's logical components into a simpler statement to bring out the underlying meaning, but this seemed to suggest the statement wasn't really saying anything meaningful (maybe it's my arranging that's at fault there, though): i.e., something like "A musical's love is communicated through the words, etc...." I took a look in the Cambridge Guide to Theatre for a better formulation we might use, but, rather unhelpfully, it only has an entry for American musical theatre. The back-thought to my concern is the recognition that the relationship between emotion and theatre in general is notoriously complex; not all music is there to tug at the heartstrings, as it were. Speaking personally, my ambiguous relationship to the genre turns on this question: those that clearly do (Weber comes to mind) hold very little attraction, while others that are more concerned with other kinds of repsonses I find to be among the greatest works of theatre.
• Secondly, the sentence defines the musical's formal construction in terms of "an integrated whole". This seems like a Gesamtkunstwerk principle; many do strive for this, I'm sure, but there are other forms of musical theatre that explicitly do not (I'm thinking, for example, of Brecht & Weill's "separation of the elements" principle that guides Threepenny etc.). Might there be a less-strong way of putting this--not a whole and not integrated; perhaps something like articulates (in the sense of an articulated lorry)?
• Thirdly, I suspect the last sentence I've cut & pasted above is an attempt to address the "stage" edits mentioned up above; however, it doesn't read well to my eyes. Having said "theatre", "stage" seems redundant. Maybe this is a separate, fourth concern, but it feels linked to this one: the article title and opening describes Musical theatre, speaking of the form, but then seems to be speaking about it's individual 'products'; i.e., the equivalent in non-musical theatre of the difference between, "the theatre" (as an art form) and an individual "piece of" theatre, or a drama/play. The logic doesn't seem quite right. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Following your numbering system, some thoughts:

1. Theatre is about conveying drama, in the literary sense, to the audience. I think that all we are trying to say, in the sentence above, is that in musical theatre, we convey the drama (plot, characters + "emotional content"?) using all the elements of text, music, movement/dance and technical aspects (lights, set, costume, sound). "Emotional content" could be humor, anger, pathos, fear, love, hatred, excitement, etc.

2. The "integrated musical", where the dialogue and the songs flow seamlessly to carry the story forward, is held out by the sources as the holy grail of musical theatre, except for avant guarde theatre. Edwardian musical comedy and the revues of the early 20th century, which had hardly any plot and were basically an excuse to see pretty girls and hear a bunch of popular songs, quickly gave way (certainly by the time of Rodgers and Hart) to more "integrated" shows where the stories made you laugh, cry or whatever, not just a collection of songs. It's interesting that you bring up Weill, because he sort of resisted the integration of musical theatre and brought in modernist elements to the musical that were seen already in opera.

3. I agree that we don't need the word "stage" there, and that "theatre" covers it. The sentence is also trying to say that musicals are not all musical comedies. I'm not sure I follow your "fourth" point. The article attempts to explain the concept AND history of musical theatre, through examples of shows, people involved and developments in musical theatre techniques. One point that we try to make is that musical theatre is a broader concept than merely the "Broadway"-style musical.

Any other opinions? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments in response: Yes, there's much you say here that I agree with. In (1), specifying the multi-media nature of its means is a very important counter to the tradition of reading (all, actually) theatre as a form of literature. But still, I don't quite understand what's meant by emotional content. Whose emotions? And following from that, we'd need a source that argues that the "emotional" content is more significant than it's "intellectual", or "social and historical", or "metaphysical", content.

In (2), yes, I follow that historical development and agree it is important to mark it somehow in the Intro. I guess what I'm touching on is a POV issue. Might there be a way to describe this development that doesn't define the form as one in which its constituent elements are necessarily "integrated" and "unified"? Something along the lines of "more fully interacting" perhaps? My gut feeling is that the best approach, again, would be to rely on sources--I just don't have anything that general on Musical theatre to draw on immediately available, otherwise I'd make a more concrete suggestion. And, yes, Weill's modernism was exactly the background to my thinking: fragmentation as a principle against unification; actually, that's not quite correct, because the "separation of the elements" idea isn't a mere collection of fragments (it's not that avant garde, in that respect), but rather each medium has distinct "messages" to convey, which adopt attitudes towards one another (in my view, then, enabling a far more sophisticated and dense form of communication to take play). The distinct "elements" are certainly interacting in sophisticated ways (as against the early revues you mention), but they're not "integrated". Related to the separation of media, too, there is what Benjamin calls the principle of Interruptions: that the song doesn't flow seamlessly from the dialogue and back again, but rather the shift from speaking to singing is marked abruptly. This contrast of approach reminds me of a similar one in the cinema, between the principles of continuity editing in classical Hollywood cinema (which aspires to make the verfremsdung of the cut invisible) as opposed to the jarring impact of montage in Eisenstein, Godard or some of Hitchcock.

In (3), yes agree and understand; and (4): Yes, it was late and my logic was getting a little fuzzy. Of course, it's important to describe both; my point was that it didn't seem to do so yet; or, at least, that I thought that a clearer description was needed. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Integrated musical" is a commonly used term and is easily referenced. A quick google search brings up 31,700 references. See, e.g.: http://www.musicals101.com/stagecap.htm and http://www.jstor.org/pss/1225307 and this: ("integrated musical," is "a musical in which the book, lyrics, and score all grow from a central idea and all contribute to the story line"). Also, do you prefer "dramatic content" instead of "emotional content"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why you've offered the integrated musical reference. I'm not suggesting that there aren't many musicals whose elements are integrated in the way we're discussing (and as indicated by the google poll), only that that shouldn't form part of the definition of "musical theatre" in general, since there is (at least one) major strand in which such a definition would be inapplicable.

"Dramatic content" is certainly clearer and more specific, if that's what was intended in the original sentence--the story of the interactions between the characters. But is that what it was getting at? Just thinking about it off the top of my head (i.e., without reference to a source it might use), I'm not entirely sure... Of course the dramatic content can be presented through the various media, but then, is drama the only thing being communicated via these channels? I know you say above that in the integrated musical, songs and music carry the story forward, in which case "dramatic content" is fine, but don't songs and music also serve as "lyrical" vehicles sometimes, rather than "dramatic"? Songs there to express an emotional state, mood or atmosphere, rather than to advance the narrative? I don't have the breadth of knowledge in that area to know. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack articles into parent media?

A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA (T) @ 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Theatre

Portal:Theatre is currently undergoing a portal peer review, and comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Theatre/archive1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cfd to rename US categories

Has anyone notified you of this? No, I thought not. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Me and My Girl

This article about a major musical has no plot synopsis. Can someone add one, please? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I've made a proposal here to rename the "London West End musicals" category to "West End musicals", if you'd like to comment. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Category:London West End musicals [1] and I was surprised to see how many American musicals were listed. I assumed the category pertained only to those musicals that originated in the West End. Is it really accurate to list every musical that plays there, or is it better to limit the list to British musicals only? I think the latter makes more sense, but I'm interested in hearing other opinions. LiteraryMaven (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the idea was only to list shows that originated, or at least had their first big production, there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What would happen to something like Fame the Musical? It didn't originate in London, but has been a fixture of the West End scene for the past 12+ years? Belle pullman (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Fame has had six separate successful West End runs, and has probably been performed there more often than anywhere else, I suppose it could be listed as a West End musical. I question listing such shows as Cabaret, La Cage aux Folles, and Rent as such simply because they have been staged there. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We do need to come up with a criterion for the West End and Broadway categories that we can agree on, and then put that on the category pages, with a link to the discussion. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that it should be originating shows only. But if not, how would we draw the line? Proposals? DionysosProteus (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD of The Nervous Set

May I bring to your attention an AfD for The Nervous Set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nervous Set. I should be grateful for input, one way or another, from this project, under the purview of which this article falls. Many thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Broadway shows template

Without wanting to reopen an old debate, Template:Broadway shows seems to have been added to a lot of musicals today... I'm inclined to remove it again, but I'm not sure. And should there be a corresponding one for the West End? Any comments? -- Dafyd (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this template is encyclopedic. It needs to be constantly updated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The template at the very least needs to clarify/spell out what it represents: for example, Broadway shows in the 2008-09 season? or, shows that are currently on Broadway? (and yes, that "currently" spells trouble, my friends). Some of the shows have dates, others do not -- confusing to say the least. Further, the section titled "In the Works" seems to be speculative and Crystal ball. (A few minor points but at least 1 entry is incorrect--"Dancin'", and "Speed-the-Plow" and "American Buffalo" have opened.)JeanColumbia (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

i agree - this template is the worst possible idea. as has already been mentioned, it is both unencyclopedic and impossible to maintain. browsing through the template history, it appears to have been created by a banned user User:Broadway91 - isn't that reason enough to remove it? J. Van Meter (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As we all agree, would someone kindly notify Bib, and anyone else who added it to articles, that we will be taking it down? Also, do we do an AfD, or is there some other process for deleting it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I removedthe templates that Bib had put in over the last two days. Is there a way to figure out where else the template might still be? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

click the red link to the now-dead template. once there, click "what links here" in the toolbox. J. Van Meter (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed them all except for some redirects. Could someone take a look and see what ought to be done about them? here -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirects. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing those, since it was deleted. I hoped the template could be fixed, but yeah, it would be impossible to add every Broadway show ever, and a 'current shows' template does not work. Maybe next time I'll try to fix first, and add afterwards. Bib (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Next To Normal

I deleted the lists of workshop casts and workshop songlist in this article, and an editor restored them. I think this is WP:Listcruft. This show has had an off-broadway run in 2008, and that is the most notable thing about it, unless it goes to B'way or the West End or has a long run somewhere else. So I focused the remaining info in the article on the off-Broadway version. I think that putting lists and lengthy information in about the workshop productions is not helpful to the readability of the article. What do others think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Johnny Appleweed

May I bring to your attention an AfD for Johnny Appleweed (a musical theatre production) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Appleweed. I should be grateful for input, one way or another, from this project, under the purview of which this article falls. Many thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey Lurkey Time

Would someone please review this new article and try to fix it? (sigh) Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, look at the various edits by User:Penti. He has been throwing peacock words and WP:OR into lots of articles. It seems like a real problem to me! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Theatre of the Mind

Should this be sent to AfD? If so, please put it up, and I will support. Also, someone keeps trying to add it to the List of rock musicals, but it seems, if anything, to be a rock opera, not a rock musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Evita

I initiated a discussion about the alleged source material for this musical at Talk: Evita. I hope some of you who are better musical theatre authorities than I am will take a look and add your comments, and maybe a more reliable reference than the one that was added. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Imagine This

Just made this article for the new musical. Any help appreciated. Mark E (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I added some references, and a few details. (Is it ok to use the dd/mm/yyyy format?) JeanColumbia (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha i dunno what u mean by that but anything really, i haven't figured references etc yet and just thought this musical should have an article for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.77.195 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-musical theatre composers?

I'm in the middle of creating an article on William Furst, who's probably best known (if at all) for his musical accompaniments to the original play versions of Madame Butterfly and The Girl of the Golden West. He's not a composer of musicals, so it would seem that he would not be a part of this project. But what project would he be a part of, or what categories can I place him into? Thanks. -- kosboot (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A few suggestions for category: Category:American musical theatre directors; Category:Music arrangers. Since he worked in the broadly defined field of musical theatre, I'd put him in this project. What instrument, if any, did he play? JeanColumbia (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ssilvers for helping out. Turned out Furst wrote a few musicals after all, so he's part of the project. -- kosboot (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Guideline re: Infoboxes

I would like to add to our Article Structure guidelines that "Future productions should not be listed in infoboxes. Please wait until the production begins previews". Please vote below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I assume that a future production, properly sourced, can be shown in the article text. JeanColumbia (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, in the text, we can discuss upcoming productions that are described in WP:reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support it is not possible to clearly convey the ambiguities and uncertainties associated with a 'future production' in the 'soundbite' form required in an infobox. Such material should be properly explained and sourced in the article body.Happy‑melon 12:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although a new user who tries to add such an infobox may not be aware of our wishes for the article's structure, so the guideline may not be very effective. Thomprod (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. One of the values of our guidelines is that they give editors authority for saying, "this has been discussed, and a consensus of editors agreed that...."

Cast lists discussion #123,098,124

<sigh>Talk:Wicked (musical)#Broadway replacements. All comments greatly welcomed, even if they have been said a few thousand times before... </sigh> Happy‑melon 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Mellon, I left a message at the Wicked talk page. Would you (and everyone) kindly respond to Thomprod's request above? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Cinderella (telefilms)

I suggest renaming Cinderella (telefilms) to "Cinderella (1957 musical)". This would be consistant with the format used for Peter Pan (1954 musical). Cinderella was written for television, and although it was recorded on kinescope, it was not originally produced as a "telefilm" or Television movie. Comments? Thomprod (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Since multiple productions of the musical both on TV and stage are discussed there, why not just name it Cinderella (musical)? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

isn't the complete/"official" title Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella ? perhaps we should use that. but i agree, "telefilms" doesn't cut it. J. Van Meter (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Cinderella (musical). --Thomprod (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Impossible things are happening every day!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to article guidelines

I have suggested a change to our article guidelines here. Please comment. Thomprod (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to this, everyone. We need a consensus to make this (IMO) very sensible change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thomprod (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Noel Coward

A few of us have been working on Coward and his play articles (there are many!). Anyone want to jump in and help out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent updates

I've just noticed that WP:WPMT has a page you can link to that shows recent updates to articles in the project. Even though I've tried to figure out how to do that, I can't. Can someone tell me or point to where there's an explanation? Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In the right-hand column under the "General" heading, just click on the link called "Recent changes to WPMT articles". This will take you to a page that acts as a "watchlist" for WPMT articles. On that page, you can click on "(diff)" to see how that edit differed from the previous one for that article, click on "(hist)" to see the history of changes to the article with the most recent one at the top, or click on the article title itself to go to the current version. --Thomprod (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I got to that page. But I don't see any of the edits that I've done for articles which I've created/edited. They show up in my own watchlist and I've included the WPMT template on their talk pages. (e.g. Wang (musical) or Panjandrum (musical)). Evidently I'm not doing something. Any idea what I need to do? Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi--you need to add newly created articles to this page: [2]. I've just been adding to the "New Entries" list, altho once in a while there's a misspelling in the "old" list and the article does exist. I always do a search before I add anything new. (Here's a great project for someone--merge the new entries into the old list!) JeanColumbia (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this - finally I got it. :-) Now: wouldn't it make more sense to make this list of newly created WPMT pages into a category that would be deleted after a reasonable amount of time (6 months? 1 year?). -- kosboot (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, God! Please! No more categories!  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Prenger pictures

Recently I just obtained a picture of her. I would not mind uploading it to Wikipedia. I know about licensing things, and got no problem with it as I took the picture myself. Now, the problem is that it is rather informal (at least in my opinion). If it is looking formal, I normally upload it without any question, but for this one, I would not bother uploading it just yet. I want to know the criteria for photos in Wikipedia before uploading. w_tanoto (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up the image policy, and it's probably ok to upload it; I assume by casual you mean she's casually dressed (jeans and a t-shirt or the like) and/or it's a candid shot. It's ok as long as it was taken in a public place where she knew she could be seen by the public and possibly photographed. Unless the photograph is demeaning to her or her private life, go ahead and upload it. For more information, check the Wikipedia:Image use policy page.:)MarianKroy (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead with uploading the file, but if it is inappropriate in any way, please someone nominate it for speedy deletion. It is definitely taken in public (in fact, in the middle of crowd), with she giving me permission to take her picture after I asked her. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That photo looks absolutely fine. If she gave you permission, you have nothing to worry about. It's no worse than, say, John Barrowman. Because Wikipedia pictures have to be freely licensed, it's difficult to get photos that are much different... -- Dafyd (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually have taken few photos of west-end casts (it's uploaded to wikipedia without discussion, because I deemed it proper). Thanks for confirming it is okay. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Rice & Barton's Big Gaiety Spectacular Extravaganza Co. - Gaiety Dancers.png

Chorus girls

I just restored this. Mind you, the article on chorus line isn't really very good (and Chorus girl redirects to it), but I think it's still a highly useful illustration of the subject, and, coming from 1900, provides a nice contrast to the modern image also used. (Surely we could say a fair bit more about chorus lines and chorus girls - start with things like this, mention Florodora and Gaiety Girls, and the Stage door Johnnys...) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Capuchino Community Theatre

Er, notable? I think not. See also Kenneth L. Ton, and the "footnotes" to that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article about Kenneth L. Ton has been nominated for deletion at [3]. Please feel free to add your opinion to the discussion. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Windy City

Not only does this article barely meet Wikipedia criteria, but I believe it may have been copied verbatim from another source. Hopefully someone involved with the musical theatre project will clean it up. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not an official member of the MT project, I've taken the liberty of placing a copy-vio template on the article with a brief note on the discussion page. I simply do not have time right now to re-write the article, but will get to it within the week if no one else does.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess Article

This article needs some serious TLC I went on to find some info on the show and was faced with an article that had 3 plotlists and 5 song lists. I don't know the show very well so i'll leave it to someone who does.Mark E (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because I am very familiar with Chess, I think this extensive article does a good job of presenting all the facts. The various plots and song lists are necessary because the show underwent numerous changes from its start as a concept album through its various stagings, and each of these changes is discussed in detail. If you're looking for a specific piece of information it may be difficult to find quickly, but I'm sure you'll discover it eventually if you read the article from beginning to end. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all these many lists and cast lists do not ALL belong in the article. See WP:NOT. If you wrote a book about Chess, you could list all this stuff, but WP is not about lists. You need to decide what is notable and keep only that. I began the process, streamlining out the obviously non-notable information, but there should probably be only two cast lists, including the final version, and the other production descriptions should describe in narrative paragraphs the notable changes from production to production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:NOT says nothing substantial about lists, whereas WP:LIST gives helpful guidelines where lists are, indeed, appropriate. I have long believed that character lists, for example, belong in play articles, as do song lists in musical articles. Nothing in the MOS or on the sections on lists sways me from this belief. Having said that, however, I do agree that beyond the initial character list and/or originating cast list, or in the case of musicals, the initial song list, we should be careful in how many lists in one article contains. Thanks for allowing me to chime in.Smatprt (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I agree with all that, and I left in the full lists for several of the productions; but I turned the lists in some productions into narrative sentences listing only the notable names. Our guidlines call for a list of principal cast for the major original productions of musicals. What I and Mark are objecting to above was the multiple lists of casts for so many productions, including merely concert productions, as well as repeated plot summaries and song lists. I think the article is still a bit too listy, and that, for example, instead of re-listing full lists of musical numbers, there should be a narrative descriptions of the major changes from production-to-production. The reason for turning the information into narrative format is readability. WP articles should be readable, not a technical manual. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Noël Coward

We have nominated this article for FA. Feel free to comment at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been promoted to FA! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

HTML help needed!

Help! Our project banner has gotten out of control, displaying a long task list. Can someone please remove the task list from our banner? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you haven't just got JavaScript disabled or broken? The tasklist should (and does, for me) collapse by default. Happy‑melon 22:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it seems to be working. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

I think this article is about ready to be nominated at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments on the article (at the article's talk page), over the next week or so, before we nominate it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PROD on theatre-related person

I just prodded Sarah Hunt, and wanted to let you all know. I think she would fit in this category, but mainly I wanted to give a heads up in case anyone disagrees with me. tedder (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that her only professional credit is the role of Martha. IMO, she is not notable. She may be some day, but not yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Future play template

User:Yellowdesk is removing the future play template from articles because he thinks it's superfluous. If you disagree please post a comment on his talk page in the section I started. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards/Nominations Consistency

Hey, I'm new to the project as of today, and I think that we should come up with some sort of consistent way of including Awards and Nominations for shows. I've been surfing around the shows that won/were nominated last night at the Tony's and the inconsistency between articles is glaring and gross. I don't really care what the system ought to be, but it needs to be done. BirdDogg34 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The person who has done the most work on the awards sections for hundreds of musical theatre articles is User:JeanColumbia, but I think she is on summer vacation for a few weeks. Personally, I think the awards sections are too long and listy, and I think we should compress them. There is no reason for them to be so prominent. I definitely think that you don't need a big, bold WIN after the winners. That being said, there is no emergency here, and I strongly recommend that we wait until JeanColumbia is back and able to participate in this discussion. It would be great for you and Jean to discuss a new format and propose it here so we could all be comfortable with it (and note it in our guidelines), and then you could implement it across the whole project, and I am sure people would help you. It's a very good idea! When you are new, it is difficult to be patient, I know, but Wikipedia is not going anywhere, and it is better to have a good solution than a quick one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Award for Best Costume Design

The layout of this article is a mess and makes it very difficult to read. I was going to fix it but I didn't want to upset anyone. If nobody objects I will fix it. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Are the changes by User:TheRedPenOfDoom vandalism? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Zorro in Hell

Has anyone heard of this show? I know nothing about it, but apparently it's a musical, judging by its inclusion in the "2006 musicals" category and our project's banner on the article's talk page. Anyway, the article is in rather poor shape and could use some serious attention. To be entirely honest I'm not even sure if it meets the notability requirements for inclusion, so it might need to be removed outright. I thought I'd drop a message here in case someone wanted to try their hand at it. —MearsMan ^talk 09:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be some sort of zany/farcical/satiric play about a screenwriter cynically trying to write a script about Zorro, which leads to Zorro riding again. It appears not to be a musical, although it has music of some kind - the reviews don't mention songs or singing. It apparently ran at a couple of regional theatres and had a six-week run in Los Angeles, so I guess it's notable. Variety reviewed it here. LAWeekly's review is here. CultureVulture's review is here. Sorry, I'm snowed under. Hopefully someone else can follow up. Thanks, BTW, for the excellent changes at Fiddler. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock musical

An editor proposes to delete references to Pippin (musical), Wicked and Bat Boy from this article. I have seen all of these musicals and they seem like Rock musicals to me, but can anyone with add references? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rock_musical#Rock_musical_or_musical_with_rock_influences.3F Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pippin

From the original Pippin review: "It is a commonplace [sic]set to rock music, and I must say I found most of the music somewhat characterless...It is nevertheless consistently tuneful and contains a few rock ballads that could prove memorable." Source: Clive Barnes, The New York Times, October 24, 1972, page 37.

Disclaimer: I have never seen Pippin; I do not know really what a "rock musical" is; I have not added to the Pippin article anything having to do with the term "rock musical", and so have no point-of-view or position to defend. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bat Boy

• From the original New York Times review: "Mr. Okeefe also wrote the score, and with Alex Lacamoire, the musical director, provided the arrangements for a five-piece rock-band'" Source: Bruce Weber, The New York Times, March 22, 2001, page E1.
• From the Curtain-Up review of the original production:"Laurence O'Keefe's peppy and melodic pop-rock score is played by a five piece combo tucked away at the side of the stage." Source: Elyse Sommer, curtainup.com, based on 3/22/01 performance.

Another disclaimer: I have never seen Bat Boy, but have worked on the Bat Boy article. That article says: "The music covers many styles, from rock to rap to horror-movie film score and opera." I did not write that sentence. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wicked

Wicked reviews: Brantley (New York Times, 10/31/03): "swirling pop-eretta score"; Elysa Gardner (USA Today, 10/30/03): "haunting new songs...Add in tunes that you can actually leave the theater humming..."; Roma Torre (NY1, 10/31/03): "Schwartz...has written some lovely music, particularly his ballads for the witches, but the score is uneven and the beautiful melodies that marked his earlier works are disappointingly absent here."; Christopher Isherwood, (Daily Variety, 10/31/03): "jaunty vaudevillian number...the show's score features far too many competent but bland anthems written in an easy-listening Broadway pop mode." ; Clive Barnes (New York Post, 10/31/03): "Steven Schwartz's oppressive music and banal, if sometimes pretentiously amusing, lyrics...Schwartz...has produced the kind of bland, generic Broadway music where you tend to hear the orchestration (Alex Lacamoire, Stephen Oremus and James Lynn Abbott) before you notice the tune."

There are many many more, out of time now. But, I see nothing so far that would be a good source for Wicked being considered a rock musical.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my last disclaimer--I saw Wicked, could not possibly characterize the score as anything in particular, and I have no stake in the Wicked article.JeanColumbia (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have not added these references to the article, waiting for others to decide if they are satisfactory.JeanColumbia (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

These are all reputable sources. Thanks for digging them up. Anything on Wicked? -- Ssilvers (talk)

see above--nothing so far and I think I'm finished for today. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

One more:

In the Heights

Is this a rock musical? Charles Isherwood (New York Times, February 9, 2007) wrote: "boasts an infectious, bouncy Latin-pop score...Some of the more earnest anthems, effective as they are, run in grooves derived equally from Broadway formulas and the new power-pop idioms employed with such exhausting frequency on “American Idol.”

I did not see the show. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the term is that it's anachronistic. In 1968, a "rock" musical was something notable since the majority of musicals did not have rock elements. In 2009, almost every new musical is in some way a rock musical, whether it chooses to call itself that or not. (I feel if a musical chooses to call itself that, it's trying to evoke a response from those who are nostalgic about rock.). So I'm not sure whether it's a wise thing to keep this category. -- kosboot (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, we're discussing the Rock musical article, not the category. Can we stick to that before getting into the subject of whether there ought to be such a category? The Rock musical article could certainly use more referencing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Grease and Godspell are listed as examples of Rock Musicals here. The author, John Kenrick, is the Managing Director of the website Musicals101.com as well as teaching musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School and at Marymount Manhattan College. I think these shows' inclusion on his list is a good reference and have added it to the article. --Thomprod (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw Wicked three times and the last thing I would call it is a rock musical. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have sources handy to support my claims, but I'm relatively familiar with the cast recording of Bat Boy and I would definitely classify the show as a rock musical. On the other hand, I've seen Wicked and I never would have thought to apply the term "rock musical" to it. I don't know enough about Pippin or In the Heights to say anything either way. —MearsMan ^talk 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't call Wicked, Pippin or In the heights rock musicals.Mark E (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Martin

Please see the discussion at [4] and cast your vote. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Too Close to the Sun

Have made an article for this new musical. Opens on July 16th so hopefully someone will post a plot summary.

I looked around but couldn't find one. Once it opens, there should be more info available. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, from first preview reviews it seems as though this won't make the end of the month, so hopefully one of the few that sees it (and stays for the whole show) can post something :).Mark E (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Musicals by year

I note that the Wiki Opera Project allows one to navigate from year to year without having to perform a search. (See the category 1894 operas for example.) I don't see how it's done, but might the Wiki Musical Theatre Project want to consider that? -- kosboot (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kosboot; do you mean something like this article? :2009 in theatre. I have in the past tried to keep the article up-to-date, but it's just not my primary interest, (& I've been busy in real life). Or, are you thinking more along the lines of a template or category? I'm very weak on categories, perhaps there already is one? JeanColumbia (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a "musicals by year" category system is already in place, with the most recent one being Category:2009 musicals. It goes all the way back to Category:1855 musicals, with a few categories left uncreated in the earlier years (presumably due to a lack of Wikipedia articles on musicals from those years). These categories should be easily found at the bottom of any article on a musical, but if you've come across one without it please by all means add it to the appropriate category. When I'm around I do the best I can to keep an eye on the categorization of musical theatre articles, but it's hard to be sure everything has been covered with there being so many shows. —MearsMan ^talk 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidently I'm not making myself clear. Please go directly to a category like 1894 operas - you'll see above the automatically-generated alphabetical list there is a kind of navigational time line generated from some markup I can't detect. Using it, one can easily browse operas by year without having to do searches. -- 22:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok - sorry - now I see it. Thanks, MearsMan. -- kosboot (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Opera vs. Musical

I created an article about Santa Maria (musical), which had music and lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein I. I pointed out that the program says "a romantic opera." So a non-member of this group User:Singingdaisies has tried to switch it to Santa Maria (opera) because the work is "verifiably" an opera (I switched it back). I tried to convince this person that most musicals of the time (1890s) were called operas and not musicals, but this person disagrees with me. I intend to find more source material to prove it's a musical, but if any of you can help me sway this person, it would be appreciated: Talk:Santa Maria (musical) -- kosboot (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked the other editor to give you a couple of weeks to find a source, but I think it's likely that s/he's right. Whether it's "called" an opera or operetta won't make much difference to the content, except that if it's an opera, the opera project will want to remove the infobox. I think infoboxes are silly, so this doesn't bother me much. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Sarah Brightman

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Sarah Brightman/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please join the discussion

I'm hoping we can get some additional feedback re: listing current productions in West End theatre at Talk:West End theatre. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of musical theatre?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting. -- The Transhumanist 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article Musical Theatre already does this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ye the Musical Theatre Article is pretty good. Im not too sure actually. Its not as if you could do an Outline since all theatres in the west end/broadway are notable. Alot of shows are equally popular and so it would be subjective which ones were included.Mark E (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally like the outlines; I don't think they belong in the article space. The number of articles that are specifically germane to musical theatre as opposed to other kinds of theatre is slim, and we already have Lists of musicals.... — MusicMaker5376 20:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we're largely in agreement here. In my opinion the outline articles often appear cluttered and are difficult to navigate or use in any reasonable fashion. I fail to see how the Musical Theatre project could benefit from such an outline, especially since the information is already covered just as well (if not better) elsewhere, as pointed out in the previous comments. —MearsMan ^talk 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox issue

A minor concern that I'm not sure has been discussed: in the "Awards" section, we focus mainly on production-specific awards. Does this include revivals? Meaning, can we include Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical in the infobox? — MusicMaker5376

I would think they should be, especially for oliviers/tonysMark E (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

More La Cage

Here is a bit on the background of La Cage-I don't know if you want to use it, it's not well-documented. The original musical was titled "The Queen of Basin Street"; here is the quote from the demo recording site: "Musical based on LA CAGE AUX FOLLES to be set in New Orleans and to be directed by Mike Nichols and choreographed by Tommy Tune. It fell apart and Jerry Herman ended up writing the score for LA CAGE AUX FOLLES". Composer Maury Yeston, book by Jay Presson Allen. Here:[[5]].

Later--documentation is NY Times, 5/8/81, p. C2, "Broadway" by Carol Lawson.

There is a good interview in the New York Times, "How Stars of 'La Cage' Grew Into Their Roles", Aug 24, 1983, with Hearn & Barry, about their feelings about playing these roles (so very early 80s. JeanColumbia (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Music Maker and Jean Columbia! I will certainly take a look at that and im sure my college library will have the Herman Biography when I go back next month. I went to my local library today but couldnt find anything really, although I did find some nice holiday reading (Elaine Paige's Autobiography!). Thanks again!Mark E (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) P.s. i also think its definitely time i learn how to cite references properly! can't get away with it forever :P.Mark E (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, Mark E, looking forward to see what else you do. One more thing, to get to the GA, I think you'll need a separate section on "Response", to include "Critical reception" and "Awards" at least. Some, if not most, of the material for this new section is already in the article. (As a matter of fact, if it were me, I would carefuly study some of the Musical theatre articles already rated GA, like Wicked, they give a good idea of what needs to be in the article, and how the technical parts should look.) JeanColumbia (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast lists

Mark E nominated the article Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists for deletion. I wanted to note that there are other cast list articles that you might want to consider the AFD process for:Billy Elliot the Musical casts; List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members; List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts (nominated for deletion on June 20, 2007, result:Keep, no consensus). I think if the Legally Blonde cast list article is deleted, there is a case for deleting the others. JeanColumbia (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I think for these musicals it would be good to do what i've done on the Legally Blonde (musical) page and also how i added the notable replacements into the table at Hairspray (musical) rather than have the untidy lists afterwards. Im more than happy to do this for the 3 musicals mentionedMark E (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I loathe those articles, but I do see a purpose for them: they keep the information from creeping into the main article. I'm not particularly fond of the table in Legally Blonde (musical), either. Major names, usually originators, should be mentioned in prose, but I know that fans of the show (whatever show) usually feel the need to document every person who's ever played any role, anywhere. It's difficult to ward against that, so that's why these lists aren't a bad idea.... — MusicMaker5376 02:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see why people may not like the table I put into the legally blonde article but I think it has purpose and is much tidier than having all casts listed (I think when the london production opens it might be an idea to list the notable tour cast in prose and just have the OBC and OLC in the table).

For another example of where I think a table could be used to organise information, see The Drowsy Chaperone. The article is not too bad until the cast lists and especially the hidious rewards list, this could be much more nicely organised. It is also incomplete, with Olivier Award nominations not mentioned. Or (and I don't know what the opinion is on this), make it like I have done the productions of La Cage aux Folles (musical) and also how Hair (musical) displays the casting/award information in prose. I actually used the format of Hair to revamp the La Cage productions section.Mark E (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We have in the past attempted to find a way to organize awards. If you take a look at the Template sandbox, in the history around Jan 08, you can see what we were doing. Also, you can look at the talk page and see what had been discussed. I still think it's a good way to organize awards on a temporary basis, even if I think the design left little to be desired. Eventually, though, they should be prozized.

Same thing with the table in Legally Blonde (musical): a good way to organize the information temporarily, until it can be prozized.

You're right about Hair (musical). Didn't realize the article did that. Perhaps because I'm less familiar with La Cage it seemed strange. — MusicMaker5376 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say I do rather like the table that is in the template sandbox for displaying the awards information, although to be honest I would rather have Award/Cast information displayed any other way than a list like

• Elle - Laura Bell Bundy
• Sorority Girl - Some random actress
• 2nd cover Elle and the 3rd person on the left in the courthouse scene (2nd row) Red linked name

If the hope is to get Hair (musical) to featured article status (which im sure it will. The article is outstanding), then I would be inclined to go with how the information is represented in that article. No awards tables, no cast lists and just expanded sections on each of the productions (ala my recent edits to La Cage aux Folles (musical).Mark E (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

...which is relatively easy to do with Hair. So much has been written about that show -- multiple books on just Hair, etc. -- that it should be an awesome article. (Thank you for the compliment, tho!) Most musicals don't have that, which is what makes this job a difficult one. AND what makes tables a decent way to handle things until those books are written and can give us some detail. (I wouldn't hold my breath for scholarly works on Legally Blonde, though... ;-). — MusicMaker5376 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No most definitely not! haha. Although saying that I have seen coffee table books for hairspray/avenue q/spring awakening so wouldnt put it past them. I know books have been done about hair etc but still the basic cast information and the way it is presented in the article ala - "it starred so and so name here as Claude, so and so name here as [[2nd lead character," etc etc etc, shouldnt be difficult at all. (on a different note, I see hair next week on my new york trip! Woop Woop!)Mark E (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

La Cage aux Folles (musical)

I have been working on this article the past few days and would maybe like some informal feedback? I have worked mainly on the productions section although hope to work on the plot summary to add in the songs and incorporate character information so I can take out the dreaded character list. Is there anything else you can think of maybe adding into the article? I'd like to think it could be of GA standard someday.Mark E (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. It'll definitely need work before it gets to GA. Some thoughts:

• Take a look at our Article Structure. Moving the synopsis to an early spot in the article allows us to know who you're talking about when you refer to who played what.
• WP:MOSDATE. It doesn't matter what form the article uses, as long as it's consistent. I saw (I think) three different date styles in the article.
• As to what to add...? More. How does it compare with the source material? Anything interesting to be said about its development? You touch on what it went through in development, and my guess is that there's probably more to be said. Have any books been written about La Cage? Might not be a bad place to start.... — MusicMaker5376 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if you want this article be be more interesting (I am not one to think about B or Ga etc ratings, they are too subjective for my taste): you'll need to have a good referenced background section--that means no original research, nothing hypothetical. Start, for example, with the Jerry Herman bio (Jerry Herman By Stephen Citron), starting on I think p 225 there is an entire chapter on La Cage. Then there is an interesting article in the New York Magazine (Aug 22, 1983), an interview with Harvey F. I haven't checked, but I feel certain Mr. Laurents has some very interesting things to say!. (Use google books, its great). (For a GA article, you will have to pay strict attention to many technical details, MM mentioned a big one, the other is reference formating. and spellin) JeanColumbia (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The best sources of all would be Jerry Herman's autobiography, Showtune, and two books by Arthur Laurents, Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood and Mainly on Directing: Gypsy, West Side Story, and Other Musicals. All of them have plenty of information about La Cage. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Article layout

In film articles, the plot synopsis comes after the opening. This makes sense because the first thing most people want to know is what the film is about. But I notice in articles about musicals, the plot synopsis usually comes later in the article, after the section about the different productions, which doesn't make sense to me. In most articles, I'll read that "John Smith" played "Lead Male Character" before I know who "Lead Male Character" is. If I have to scroll down to find out, then the article isn't very reader friendly. I think most people want to know who "Lead Male Character" is and what happens to him in the plot BEFORE they know who played him. Can someone justify why the plot synopsis comes so late in the article instead of just saying because that's the way it's supposed to be done? I just want to say that from the POV of someone who is looking for information, the information is coming in the wrong order. 172.134.81.64 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was actually just thinking about this. This is a change I may support, barring any reasonable argument otherwise. — MusicMaker5376 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've actually kind of noticed this myself. Whenever I start reading a new article, the first things I look at are the plot synopsis, the musical numbers, and the cast list (typically in that order, unless I'm just looking to see if an unfamiliar show has any songs I recognize). It's only later that I go back and read the production history, reception, etc. If this is the kind of information most people are looking for right off the bat, I guess it would make sense to put it first for the sake of user-friendliness and whatnot. I suppose my one concern is that this would be an overhaul of the structure of most of our articles (albeit a somewhat simple one to impliment). It would take time to go through and reorganize all of the information, but I suppose that's no excuse not to do it. There is no deadline, after all. —MearsMan ^talk 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And, the nice thing about putting the synopsis before the production info is that it doesn't require a vote--it's already in your article structure guidelines. All you need to do is to decide to implement what your established guidelines are. JeanColumbia (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing these article structure guidelines weren't always in effect, because I just picked a dozen or so musicals at random and every article about them has the synopsis after history and productions, and JeanColumbia was in the history of all of them. If you're adding new information to old articles, who don't you reorder the sections while you're at it? It will take less than a minute and then everything will be according to the current guidelines. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be some discussion of background (genesis) of the show before the synopsis, but I agree that the productions section can go later. Nevertheless, I think it is just as sensible to do it as shown in Hair (musical). It's in the Table of Contents - it's easy enough to skip there if all you want is plot. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If all you wanted was plot, I'd agree. However, I think the point that the poster was making is that, in the history section, sometimes actors are mentioned with their associated role. If you want to read the whole article, you don't know who those roles are and how they fit in until you get to the synopsis. It would alleviate some confusion and add to the reader's overall understanding if the synopsis is front-and-center. In Hair (musical), it's not too bad because we only discuss Claude and Berger in the history section, and only to mention that they're autobiographical. In some of the shorter articles, the history section contains information about awards, critical reception, etc., because the information is currently too slim to warrant their own sections.

When I was looking at Mark E's work on La Cage aux Folles, I had this same thought. The article was discussing some of the good press for "La Cagelles", and, at that point in the article, I hadn't been told who they were.

Jean -- the Article structure has the history before the synopsis. I think anon is suggesting the AS be lede - synopsis - history. And I think I agree. — MusicMaker5376 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the synopsis should come after the opening, the same way it does in articles about movies. The logical order seems to be: What is it about? How did it develop? Where was it produced, and who was in it? What did the critics say about it? What awards did it win? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to work on La Cage aux Folles because the synopsis is practically at the end of the article. Also, I disagree with the statement "The musical's 1983 Broadway production overcame competition from several strong new shows that season..." The Rink was panned by most of the critics and closed after only 204 performances, pretty bad for a show with Liza Minnelli and Chita Rivera. Baby got mixed reviews and ran for 241 performances. I don't think either of these shows could be called "strong" and I don't think either of them were much "competition" for La Cage aux Folles. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the film articles jarring. I still think that it makes sense to see the history/development section before the plot synopsis. Hey, anonymous users who are contributing to this discussion, if you are interested in musicals articles, I suggest that you register an account and join WP:MUSICALS. I wonder whether even film articles that have been promoted to FA just jump in with the synopsis section. Does anyone know? All the WP:G&S articles that have been promoted to FA start with history/background. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines for articles about films list plot synopsis immediately after the lead section and I think most articles follow that order. Personally, I'd rather know what a movie's about before I know everything about the background and development. The production section in many articles is very long, especially for movies that ran into a lot of problems, had a lot of special effects in them, or were controversial for some reason. A lot of the production section refers to things in the plot so if you haven't read the plot section first you wouldn't know what the references mean. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked 3 film FAs: Borat, 300 (film), and Blade Runner. All three have the plot section first.

SS, you're talking aesthetics. Aesthetics need to take a backseat to readability. — MusicMaker5376 14:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related issue - I noticed that the character list is often placed after the synopsis. Example at La Cage: [[6]] We found it helpful at the Shakespeare project to place it before the synopsis, thus making the synopsis easier to follow. I would think that would make sense in all play and musical articles. Does that make sense? (BTW -I am NOT talking about cast lists, which I tend to dislike and would rather see in prose discussing leads only and not 3rd chorus member on the left!). Smatprt (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MM: Thanks for the research on the film FAs. I don't think that your statement is a fair accusation, however. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean that your reasons are about "readability", while mine are "merely aesthetic". I think it is logical, and contributes to readability, that a history/background of what happened to create the show and bring it to a full production should go before the description of the show itself, including the plot summary. Remember, the WP:LEAD should contain a very brief plot as part of the overview of the article. Your argument above that a short article has most of its info in the lead is specious: our goal is to expand all of our articles to contain full information as described in our article structure guidelines. If a new consensus of members of the project disagree, OK, but in the past most members of the project agreed with me, as reflected in our guidelines and the current structure of most of our articles. Now it seems that several of the editors who were around when we designed the guidelines (mostly in 2006) are inactive here. But instead of you, me and an anonymous editor continuing to reiterate our opinions, can we get some opinions from other members of the committee? I am happy to yield to a consensus of editors, if there is a consensus, to change our guidelines even though I do not personally agree with it. I would note, that as described above, our articles are now mostly consistent with the order described in our guidelines, so if we decide to change it, that is going to be a lot of work with little gain. Instead, I would propose that if we do have some more active editors than we have had over the past two years, that we start a project to improve our many stubs - I estimate that we have over 500 articles with no plot summaries (or a perfunctory plot summary). All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my response felt accusatory; I did not mean for it be an attack. My response was phrased as such because I agree with you -- I think it's strange to start the article off with the synopsis. However, my feelings toward that are because of aesthetics. Now that you've explained your position further....

I think you're putting too much emphasis on chronology. Yes, what happened to create the show occurred before the show existed and logically it should come before the discussion of what the show is. And, yes, I agree that our goal should be to get every musical article to FA status, but the reality is that the vast majority are not. In the years (decades!) that it will take for the majority of the articles to get to even GA status, the articles exist, in my opinion, trapped in a faulty structure.

In 2006, when the AS was proposed, I was the one who originally suggested the lede - history - synopsis format. (I've checked the talk.) It was never put to a discussion; we all just agreed to it without, in my opinion, thinking it through. I no longer think it's viable.

Also, if you read the AS, under the synopsis section, it says something along the lines of "arguably the most important part of the article". If memory serves, you've even posited that argument in the past. (I could be wrong, I didn't check, if I am, I apologize, I don't want to put words in your mouth.) If the synopsis is so important, why is it shoved in the middle of the article? — MusicMaker5376 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with putting the character list before the synopsis, but I like even more the format of having a casting table that shows the names of the principal characters (only) on the left, with the names of the actors who have played the roles on Broadway and the West End (or the other most prominent productions). The "annotated" cast lists with descriptions of the characters seem to be redundant with the plot synopses and are almost always OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but for me, the tables are less satisfactory than a nice bit of prose discussing just the leads. I like the character lists that stay on point - "Juliet, daughter to Capulet", as opposed to "Juliet, falls in love with Romeo and dies". The former is not OR, and the latter belongs in the synopsis. We found at the Sh project that with some clever editing, repetition can be avoided and the synopsis is not unduly filled with family lineage, etc. Smatprt (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not like character lists, but I feel they should remain where they are: after the synopsis. Character lists end up being a short summary of the synopsis, and, as such, I like them after the synopsis. — MusicMaker5376 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Character lists wouldn't have to exist at all if the characters were described fully in the synopsis as they should be. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. — MusicMaker5376 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editors are entitled to opinions and just because they don't have user names or aren't "members of the committee" or "members of the project" doesn't mean they aren't valid. I know exactly what MusicMaker5376 means by "readability" - if you're reading comments about characters or plot details that haven't been described yet because the production section comes before the synopsis, then the article isn't "readable". 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your opinions are valid, but why not register your account so that we know that we are dealing with the same person whenever you post? See WP:WHY. And why not join the project? It's not intended to be exclusive - anyone can do it - it's intended to give us an idea of who might be interested in collaborating on articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow what a discussion! I must say I quite like the character/cast list for shows that have a lot of characters ala Hairspray (musical),Legally Blonde (musical), although they should definitely be after the production history and synopsis. As far as the order of productions/synopsis im not really bothered but id lean with productions first then synopsis (Or like Hair where thers the original productions followed by the summary and then the revivals information, I think this might be good for La Cage too). Seeing Hair tomorrow!!! WoooootsMark E (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the synopsis first. And I agree that a synopsis should be detailed enough that character lists are unnecessary. In many articles that have them all they do is repeat what's already in the synopsis. LargoLarry (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hair

This version of Hair (musical) moves the synopsis directly after the history, now before the section on productions instead of after it.
To me, it seems like, now, it would make more sense to have the productions all in one section, toward the end. Let the synopsis flow into themes, etc., then discuss the productions like this, with perhaps the critical reception section in with the productions. Thoughts? — MusicMaker5376 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of [title of show]

Sorry to start another discusson in the midst of the other one, but I just noticed that an editor renamed the article Title of Show and changed all occurances of [title of show] to Title of Show (except one in the lede) in this edit, citing WP:MOSTM for the change. It was my understanding that the show's actual title was [title of show] (lowercase with brackets), based on the official website, IBDB, Playbill etc. If this were one of those situations where I'd seen the show's title rendered multiple ways I wouldn't question it, but I've honestly never seen it referred to as anything other than [title of show].

Apparently, however, there's a policy in place stating that the title should be rendered as Title of Show on Wikipedia "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." I haven't come across a situation like this before, and I'm honestly not sure which way is correct anymore, so I thought I'd ask for some of your thoughts on the matter. —MearsMan ^talk 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. There's a guideline in place. Guidelines need common sense applied to them. By convention, the titles of musicals have always been rendered as their title at the three sites you just mentioned. — MusicMaker5376 21:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert it! The person who edited it obviously has no clue at all about the show. Its not called Title of show its called [title of show].Mark E (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the editMark E (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

reasons to be pretty is lower case and rightly so. If there actually is a policy that states that the title should be rendered as Title of Show on Wikipedia "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner", that policy is wrong and should be changed. Wikipedia has no right to change a title from what the author intended. LargoLarry (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That should also be capitalised. The guidelines and policies have been discussed and agreed upon by a large number of editors. They are generally adhered to throughout the project. instances where they are not can be easily changed. If you disagree with said guidelines and policies, then feel free to discuss them at the relevant talk pages, however they are unlikely to be changed. The rendering of a title in lowercase is for stylistic reasons only, and is not recognised in correct English usage. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What utter nonsense! An author has a reason for rendering a title in lowercase and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide it should be spelled differently. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia should be accurate. LargoLarry (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lowercase/capitalised does not affect spelling, it is simply standardising the English according to the usual rules. This is the sort of accuracy wikipedia strives for. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino intentionally misspelled Inglorious Basterds. Is Wikipedia going to decide it should be spelled correctly? If you're not going to correct an intentional misspelling, then you have no right to change an intentional use of lower case. LargoLarry (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the spelling affect the way the name is said? Yes. Does the presence of square brackets or lowercase affect the pronounciation? No - these are purely decorative and intended for stylistic reasons only. The alternative spelling, despite being technically incorrect, is important for pronounctiation reasons. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The title of the work is [title of show], not Title of Show. That simple. It's not a trademark. It's the title of a work. — MusicMaker5376 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like thirtysomething is the title of a TV show, and is correctly styled as Thirtysomething. Just like the title of the film Se7en, which is correctly styled as Seven. The band blink-182 is correctly styled as Blink-182, the magazine TIME is correctly styled as Time. Explain to me how this instance is any different to these, where WP:MOSTM is applied. Why should Title of Show be any different? Nouse4aname (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the name [title of show] is the name of an artwork, and was decided on by the artists. From reading this discussion you can see there is a clear consensus on the matter and that you are editing in bad faith.Mark E (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not editing in bad faith, and I suggest that you read WP:AGF. I am attempting to bring a little consistency to the project, according to a guideline that was agreed upon by consensus. A guideline that clearly applies in this instance. Contrary to your belief, consensus does not mean counting votes. It means weighing up the arguments. As I have provided both guideline and policy to support the usage of standard English, whereas no valid reasons have been provided to support the use of non-standard English. That is except of course, IAR, which always comes up when people run out of arguments. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because musicals (indeed, any work of art) sometimes end up receiving a common name, we've always relied upon the sites cited by MearsMan above to decide upon the title. Sometimes marketing agents market a show as, for example, "Legally Blonde, The Musical", while the actual title of the show is Legally Blonde. Therefore, we've used these sites to determine the title.

Let me again point out that WP:MOSTM, as the rest of the MOS, is a guideline, expected to be approached with some semblance of occasion. As the articles are on the artistic work and NOT the product, WP:MOSTM does not apply. — MusicMaker5376 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. All of the above examples are comparable to this instance. There is no logical reason to pick and choose where and when to apply the guideline. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See further examples: the film AdULTHOOD - correctly styled as Adulthood, KiDULTHOOD - correctly styled as Kidulthood. There are literally hundreds of films that are "styled" with the titles in ALL CAPS but this is not adopted in wikipedia, so why should lowercase lettering and purely decorative punctuation marks need to be used for every instance of the title? Explain why it is so important that the stylistic form of the title is used throughout, rather than mentioned in the lead only? Just because WP:MOSTM is "only" a guideline, does not mean that you can pick and choose when to abide by it and when to ignore it. You need to have pretty sound reasons to do so. I have seen no logical reason presented thus far. The argument that it's the "official name" or whatever doesn't stick. It is the way the title is styled. The actual name does not change. Please explain how [title of show] is pronounced any differently to Title of Show... Nouse4aname (talk)

The problem with WP:MOSTM is that it mixes trademarks with titles, and they're two completely different things. And Nouse4name, every example you cited is not "correctly" styled, it's styled according to some bizarre Wikipedia guideline that thinks it's OK to take a writer's work and change it. I wonder how these writers would feel about that. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here here!! Where abouts is this discussion located where this styling was decided? I'd be quite interested to read it. Mark E (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A trademark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify its products or services. A play, film, TV series, book, etc, etc is not a product or a service, it's a copyrighted work.

One of the best examples of an abuse of WP:MOSTM is the article about E.E. Cummings, which begins "Edward Estlin Cummings (October 14, 1894 – September 3, 1962), popularly known as E. E. Cummings, with the abbreviated form of his name often written by others in all lowercase letters as e. e. cummings..." "Often" written by "others"? It is always written in lower case not only by others but it was written in lower case by cummings himself! Why should Wikipedia decide he can't spell his own name the way he wants to? LargoLarry (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, we aren't "changing" the name of anything. We are simply applying standard English rules to non-standard titles. This way the encyclopedia has a more professional appearance, rather than looking like it was written by a five year old child with no grasp of punctuation or grammar. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with a basic grasp of English knows that a sentence begins with a capital letter. What is so very special about this that means it escapes this most basic of rules, and thus the standard practice of capitalising titles? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense at all. An encyclopedia is supposed to be as accurate as possible in presenting the facts. That doesn't involve applying standard English rules to titles that are non-standard by the choice of the author. If an author wants to spell a title in lower case or misspell it completely, he does so with a purpose, so you don't change it just so Wikipedia won't look "like it was written by a five year old child with no grasp of punctuation or grammar." Doing so doesn't give it "a more professional appearance," it makes it a source of inaccuracy. Applying standard English rules to titles means making sure Gone with the Wind isn't spelled Gone With The Wind. It doesn't mean changing [title of show] to Title of Show, Inglorious Basterds to Inglorious Bastards, or e.e. cummings to E.E. Cummings. LargoLarry (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't changing the spelling. It is adjusting (correcting) the grammar. Do you pronounce the square brackets? No, then what are they there for? Decoration. Pure and simple. Is it necessary to replicate them time and again? No. Absolutely not. Wikipedia does not lend weight to any particular non-standard capitalisation that is done pure and simple to draw attention to itself. That is why everything is treated the same way and standardised. Otherwise the encyclopedia would be full of articles in ALL CAPS, which would just look a mess. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nouse, it appears that you are in the minority on this particular (mis-)application of MOSTM. Thank you for your time, but, as consensus seems to be against your reading of the guideline, the article will remain as [title of show]. — MusicMaker5376 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you seem to be confused as to what a consensus is. It is not a vote count. It is comparing the weight of argument on each side. In this instance both guideline (WP:MOSTM) and policy (WP:NC) indicate the use of Title of Show. No logical argument has thus far been presented to support [title of show]. No valid reason has been provided to invoke WP:IAR, and "but its the way they write it" just isn't an argument. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting to invoke IAR. I am suggesting that you familiarize yourself with the fundamental difference between a policy and a guideline.

Simply because you believe that your argument holds more weight is not a determination of consensus, either. Several valid arguments have been presented to support [title of show]. You're choosing to ignore them as being against policy. However, there is no policy that you can point toward that says that you're correct. — MusicMaker5376 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines say, "Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks." A title isn't a trademark. And a very logical argument to support [title of show] has been presented numeous times - that's the way the author wants it which, despite your belief to the contrary, is the best argument of all. 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LargoLarry (talk • contribs)

Nouse4aname, I think part of the issue stems from your lack of familiarity with the show in question. [title of show] isn't rendered as such just to look spiffy or draw attention to itself: it is to signify that, in essence, the show itself has no title. [title of show] documents its own creation, its own existence. It's a musical about the creation of a musical about the creation of a musical ad nauseam. The people who wrote the musical star in the show as themselves, recreating the creation process of the production. The show contains conversations about what the show should be about, and there are songs about writing songs. [title of show] isn't so much an actual title as it is a placeholder for the title of a show that remains untitled. To wrongly change the name to Title of Show is to assign the show a proper title, which I find to be a gross misrepresentation of the playwright’s original intentions. —MearsMan ^talk 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree totally with MearsMan - but just wanted to tell people of the 1969 Michael Snow film whose title is usually rendered as: <---->. On Wikipedia it's Back and Forth (film). But that's different from this case in which the show is named after the blank space on the application in which [title of show] indicates to the applicants where to put the title down. -- kosboot (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I find MearsMan's argument here very persuasive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said, MearsMan. Now, does anyone know why Neil LaBute opted to spell reasons to be pretty in lower case? LargoLarry (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Links

I think a lot of infoboxes are overlinked or incorrectly linked. A name should be linked once. If the person wrote the book, lyrics, and music, his or her name shouldn't be linked three times. If a show was revived on Broadway five times, Broadway shouldn't be linked for every revival that's listed. Also, the year of a production shouldn't be linked just to the year. If you think about it, the reason links exist is to let you get more information related to the subject of the article. Most article links now bring you to an article about that year. The correct link should be 2008, which will bring you to 2008 in theatre instead of just the year 2008. LargoLarry (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

When the infobox was being mass-added to articles, the XXXX in Theatre articles did not exist. If you want them ALL to go somewhere other than they're being directed right now, feel free to change them ALL. — MusicMaker5376 16:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the years in theatre articles need to be created! Maybe just some simple information but even the 2009 article is quite far behind. I think it needs to be looked at so we can have a standard sort of formula for these articles. It will be impossible to get all that information from the many years gone byMark E (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

They could, conceivably, point to 1987, Category:1987 musicals. — MusicMaker5376 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do the years need to be linked at all? It all seems like overlinking to me. Also, when the same person writes two or three of book, lyrics and music, why write thier names three times? In some infoboxes, the team of writers all have their names listed three times. Is there a way to fix the template so that we could have the option to say, "Book, lyrics and music by Rupert Holmes", for example? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I had that very suggestion when we were devising the template. I forget why we didn't do it that way, but take a look at the talk for the template sandbox. I'm sure it's in there. (I'd look it up myself, but I'm in a bit of a hurry.) — MusicMaker5376 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? If a person is adding new information to an old article, don't stop there, look to see if anything needs fixing, like incorrect or duplicate links or anything else covered by guidelines changes. It really won't take that long to clean up an article. LargoLarry (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Stritch

Why does the list of stage appearances include the dates of the entire run of the show whether or not she was in it for the entire run?

It doesn't make sense to say

• Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (October 13, 1962 - May 16, 1964) (replacement for Uta Hagen starting in 1963)
• Company (April 26, 1970 - January 1, 1972) (replaced by Jane Russell in 1971)

I think the article should list only the dates she was in it or no dates at all. LargoLarry (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then feel free to bring it up at the article talk. — MusicMaker5376 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

People are more likely to see my question here than in the article talk. LargoLarry (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Larry, I agree with you. The dates that she played the characters should be the ones noted in her article. However, it would be better to convert the list to prose paragraphs, explaining how each stage appearance fit into her career as a whole. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of these credits already are mentioned in the article in prose paragraphs. I think a lot of these lists are superfluous if they repeat everything that was already mentioned. I can understand "Additional credits" if something wasn't discussed but why repeat everything? LargoLarry (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, for stage works, I would describe the actor's major appearances in prose and not have a list. If there is any important information in the list that is not already described in the prose, it should be added to the appropriate prose paragraphs, and then I'd say the list can be removed. I can understand why people list filmographies, I guess. But I'd put the filmography in two colums to reduce white space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Italics?

I'm just popping in randomly here. I noticed that a couple musicals didn't have italicized titles. For example, none of the articles in this category are italicized. What is the correct behavior? These articles have italics in the lead (Shear Madness is...), so why not in the header? She these articles be using {{italic title}}? Timneu22 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

{{italic title}} was created in January 2009, and all the articles in Category:1960 musicals were created before then. Is the musical project going to utilize {{italic title}} in new articles or add it to existing ones? It doesn't look like other projects like film and television are using it. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is something I meant to ask about a while back, but I guess I never got around to it. I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on this one, but if the project does decide to use it I'd be happy to help add the template to our articles. —MearsMan ^talk 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Didn't know that possibility existed. If we decide to implement it, it could probably be added to infobox musical. There's an RfC on Template talk: italic title. Not sure where consensus stands. — MusicMaker5376 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems like "make-work" to me, and MM's experiment with the title of Hair (musical) is a good illustration of how unnecessary it is. If we are ready to resume organized work on the project, I would suggest, instead, a project either to improve stubs or to upgrade an "article of the month". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

However, if project-wide consensus should ever call for it, it's easily enough completed using AWB, or, as I said, simply adding it to Infobox musical. That requires all of a single edit to the template.

I don't think we should, at the moment, consider implementing it everywhere. It seems unnecessary and potentially contentious. Here is the example at Hair (musical). I think it's jarring, personally.

Looking at the RfC, it seems that there was support for it being used for species names only. — MusicMaker5376 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Stubs improvement drive

The italics thing seems like "make-work" to me, and MM's experiment with the title of Hair (musical) is a good illustration of how unnecessary it is. If we are ready to resume organized work on the project, I would suggest, instead, a project either to improve stubs or to upgrade an "article of the month". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

'Stubs'-love the idea (in the past few weeks, I've added enough material to a few articles to move them from stub to start, thanks to Mark for assessing). I am on a semi-wikibreak right now (just returned mainly to report the IP vandal situation), but at the end of October I'll have lots of time, will enjoy working on stubs (that is, if you promise to throw in a "C" assessment for my ego). (I have no comment on the italics situation, I started to read the RfC on it but I must be stupid, I got lost.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A great example of this is By the Beautiful Sea, which Jean recently improved (great work, as always, Jean!). Generally, to get a stub up to Start class, we will need to add a plot synopsis and a couple of refs. Let me know when you want to get started, Jean, and I'll join in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep good idea! btw when do you guys reccon onnominating Hair for FA status??? Aswell as improving stubs it might be an idea to give some C/B class articles some TLC and try get them to GA class (I would personally prefer working on articles on shows i've seen/have an interest in from recordings etc). Surely everyone on here must have afew musicals they absolutely love and would like to dig deep into the research of their history etc???Mark E (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's still a few things to be done for Hair (musical). SSilvers and I are in the process of copyediting, so that's under control, and I'm working on cite formatting. We could really use someone to go through the refs to make sure the links are still working and that they pass WP:RS. I think we're planning on a WP:PR soon, then to FA.

As for stub improvement, I'm not sure how much help I can be in the coming months, but will happily assess anything that needs assessment. — MusicMaker5376 04:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Am I correct to assume a film version of a musical shouldn't be listed as a production in the infobox? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. — MusicMaker5376 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lefou

Should this article be deleted? If not, can someone please... er... fix it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's marked for speedy. It can die. — MusicMaker5376 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception in article structure

The following comment was left at the talk page of the article on Smokey Joe's Cafe (Talk:Smokey_Joe's_Cafe):

"Critical reception"

"Articles about musicals and plays are supposed to be about the works in general so critical reception should be limited to comments about the script and score and shouldn't include references to performances in specific productions."

Would you members of the project kindly add this to your instructions for this item (Critical reception under Response), (1) because I will forget it; (2) because the instructions are quite open as they stand now and subject to interpretation; (3) it is a waste of time, effort, and potentially really hurts the key-board to type in all that useless information; and (4) everyone needs to know this important instruction. Thanks, (NOW I am wikibreaking!) JeanColumbia (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To Add, I note that someone will have to edit out the references to performances/performers in the GA Wicked (musical) article, and I don't know how many others. (See [[7]])

Waitaminute. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of what articles are "supposed to be". The acting and production aspects are critical to the success of the work as a whole. Why shouldn't they be mentioned in with the critical response? In Smokey Joe's Cafe, the offending criticism classifies (or classified as it's been removed) the performers as "acting singers" (or something like that), then goes on to explain that the show didn't need actors as there wasn't much plot development. How is that not applicable to "the work in general"? — MusicMaker5376 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that is wrong. While critical response section should certainly describe the critics' reaction to the script and score, they can also comment on the critics' reactions to particular major productions. I completely disagree with the comment at Smokey Joe's and I'm going to say so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that is right. If the critics thought Jane Smith stole the show in the fifth Broadway revival of Hello, Dolly! that tells you something about Jane Smith but nothing about Hello, Dolly! I think critical comments about performances belong in the articles about the performers, not the articles about the plays or musicals they're in. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with respect to specific comments in reviews about specific actors that do not much affect the overall review of the production. However, if a review describes how the West End production was well directed, acted and/or designed, and another review describes how the Broadway production was disappointing, that is important information about the musical and its major productions. There is no other article where this information will be found. Anonymous editors, please see WP:WHY: If you register an address, we will be able to see that you are not the person who has vandalized so many articles using your IP address. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"However, if a review describes how the West End production was well directed, acted and/or designed, and another review describes how the Broadway production was disappointing, that is important information about the musical and its major productions." In that case, each major production should have its own section and critical reception to that specific production should be included there instead of lumping all critical reception together. In a section about a revival of Funny Girl it would be appropriate to quote a critic who thought the actress playing Fanny Brice was better than Barbra Streisand. But to just quote him saying that in a general critical reception section isn't telling us anything about Funny Girl at all. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? You can say, "The original production was panned by the critics. For example, Clive Barnes wrote [giving examples].[ref] However, the revival at the Goodspeed Opera House in 1992 received raves [giving examples]. It ran for 17 years and was the second-most successful U.S. regional revival in history.[ref] However, subsequent regional revivals have fared poorly, closing quickly and losing massive amounts of money.[refs]. The 2009 West End revival, however, has been a hit at the box office, pulling in over 2 million pounds per week since opening.[ref]" And so forth. That way, you can see in one place, and easily compare, how different productions of the show did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What you propose is the equivalent of the Box office section in a movie article. Maybe a similar section could be created for musicals and plays. However, your answer has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the critical reception should include comments about performances, which I think should be mentioned only if there's a separate section about a specific production, because how amazing Mary Martin was in The Sound of Music is a reflection of her talent and not an assessment of The Sound of Music. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. How amazing Mary Martin was in The Sound of Music has everything to do with TSOM's success. It has everything to do with the overall "lore" of TSOM. Had Mary Martin not been amazing in TSOM, odds are it wouldn't have had any subsequent revivals, an Oscar-winning film, etc., because no one would have gone to see it. — MusicMaker5376 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To say nobody would have gone to see The Sound of Music had Mary Martin not been in it doesn't take into account an equally famous and talented actress easily could have been cast and been just as successful in the role. As I said, her performance in it is a reflection of her talent and says nothing about the artistic merits of The Sound of Music as it exists in the form of a libretto and score. All of you are confusing the specific production of a musical with the musical as a work of art unto itself. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I would call these sections "Reception" rather than "Critical reception", becuase they should discuss the critical AND audience reactions, as well as financial success or failure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, we're all wrong but you're right, 209? This feels very familiar. — MusicMaker5376 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A book is published, and then Meryl Streep records an audio version. A review of the book wouldn't refer to Streep's reading of it because it wouldn't have anything to do with the author's work. It's the same thing with a play or musical. It is reviewed based on its own merits. The productions of them are reviewed on the merits of the performances, directions, and set and costume designs besides the book and music. A play or musical in print exists without a performance of it. That's the point you're missing. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And my point is that a blocked user's opinion holds no weight. — MusicMaker5376 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How can a blocked user be joining this discussion? 63.3.15.2 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By using an unblocked ip and not his blocked usernames. — MusicMaker5376 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[left]The performances in major productions of a musical are important to the article about the musical. If critics said so, then it is important to note that Mary Martin's performance in The Sound of Music contributed to its success. However, I agree that the reception discussion should focus on the aspects of the reviews that are most important to understanding how the musical itself was received. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia on a regular basis and I edit it once in awhile. My main interests are film and theatre so I read those articles most. Since I'm not a member of this project maybe my POV is a little more objective. This was a very interesting discussion and it's a shame some people have to get nasty instead of just realizing everyone is entitled to an opinion. I understand what 209.247.22.164 is saying and it's unfortunate some people are so quick to think someone without a name isn't worth listening to. I think some people get so obsessed with Wikipedia they're not able to see all sides of an argument. The funny thing is years from now we'll be dead and gone and a new generation will be editing Wikipedia according to different guidelines they come up with. Everyone should stop being so serious and nobody should think he or she is better than anyone else. Have fun! LargoLarry (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's not worth listening to because he's an IP; I'm saying he's not worth listening to because he's a sockpuppet for User:SFTVLGUY2 and User:ConoscoTutto, both of whom have been blocked. Had the opinion come from another anon, I would certainly entertain the position, but, as I said, a blocked user's opinion holds no weight -- especially one who once spent a day undoing a week's worth of my edits.

If anyone agrees with SFTVLGUY2/ConoscoTutto/209.247.22.164's contention that the performances in a musical have no bearing on their reception, we can certainly discuss that. — MusicMaker5376 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)