Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure

Media

I think I brought this up last year, but we didn't get very far with it. There's no reason why we can't include a couple of music samples, and, since these are articles about musicals, we probably should. I think it would be necessary to set down some guidelines -- 30-second clips of the four or five main songs AT THE MOST. With inline sampling, we could add them at the appropriate points in the synopsis. —  MusicMaker 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have to be an "optional" heading, but feel free to write one up. Sounds very useful! --omtay38 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. —  MusicMaker 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added that Template:Listen or Template:Audio should be used for playing clips, but I wonder whether we should put together our own little player template - these are rather generic. I'll have a look at what I can do and put something together, see how well it works. - Dafyd 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've put together Template:Musical clip - it's nothing spectacular at the moment, but I think it does exactly what we want it to, without the cruft of some of the other audio templates. I've added a clip to The Fix (nothing like a good article, but I had the soundtrack handy) just to see how it works. Thoughts? - Dafyd 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant for the media files to be integrated into the synopsis. There are templates available for that.... Somewhere.... —  MusicMaker 23:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Which you've done. Sry. I don't think there's really any need to create a new template. I know there are a couple floating around, I think adding more is just going to confuse people who try to put them into articles. —  MusicMaker 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I revised the page, removing anything that sounded slightly opinionated. The other major edits involved reorganizing the lead section -- it was a little garbled. I wouldn't be opposed to really setting in stone how the lead section should be -- I think they should all be exactly the same for every article. I also added something along the lines of "multiple song lists should be avoided" (in the case of a show having several different incarnations with different music. Jekyll and Hyde comes to mind....). I'm pretty sure that's something we can all get behind. —  MusicMaker 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

SS, man, you're quick! —  MusicMaker 22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I may have jumped the gun a little on archiving, but since we decided to remove the warning template, I figured we could get rid of the lengthy discussions. If there was anything that still needed to be covered, feel free to bring it up again, here. —  MusicMaker 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

History/Changes

I'm a little stumped by some of the content of Evita (musical). I know what I think should happen, but it doesn't quite fit with the model structure, and I think the same scenario may come up elsewhere, so I wanted to check...

Evita changed considerably between the original concept album, the 1978 West End/Broadway productions, the 1996 film, and the 2006 West End revival. The article currently has a fairly hefty, pretty well written section describing these changes, which I certainly don't want to lose. My instinct would be to put them in the "History" section, but that means referring in detail to songs and scenes that have not yet been introduced to the article (which is, in standard essay style, very bad). I think I'll leave them in an "Evolution of the musical" section, after the synopsis... but I wanted to see if anyone else had any ideas...? - Dafyd 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For musicals generally, this type of information should go in the History section if it happened before the original Broadway or West End production, and in a Versions section if it happened after the opening of the original B'way or WE production. There should not be any danger of losing information. -- Ssilvers 13:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd even say to remove the insecticide subplot from the synopsis. A mention in the history is fine, but, as far as I know, that was only included on the original concept album and not actually included in any production of the musical (though I don't have the London recording). It's not on the orig B'way recording, wasn't in the US tour production from about a decade or so ago, and wasn't in the movie. I think it's safe to say that, if it ever made it to the stage, it wasn't for very long.... —  MusicMaker 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Adaptations or Version

Having just waded through the insane glurge-fests that are Avenue Q and Wicked (musical), I propose that this paragraph be added to the section on adaptations or versions:

"This section should highlight the major changes made to the musical in adapting it to a new production. The article should not include such logical changes as changes of euphemism, minor line changes, minor language usage changes, or any other feature that would necessarily be changed for intelligibility in a new venue, nor should this section include minor changes made mainly in the interest of time. The section should discuss significant plot changes, cuts of entire songs, the composition of new songs not previously included in the show (not reprises), change in lyrics of entire verses, or main character revisions (name, gender, cut from the show entirely, etc.). A blow-by-blow detail of the changes made from production to production should be avoided."

Thoughts? —  MusicMaker 06:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree, but I made suggested changes above and would also cut the words that I struck out above. -- Ssilvers 07:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me a reason for striking them out? Changes of euphemism are the most regularly changed items when bringing a show across the Atlantic, for instance, and are, therefore, the least encyclopedic. And the "in the interest of time" was meant to avoid the unnecessary blow-by-blow that was present in moving Avenue Q to Vegas. —  MusicMaker 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that shorter is better. We will be most effective if we keep our instructions short and snappy, and above all, clear: What do you mean by a "change of euphemism?" I also think the above paragraph is repetitive. I support your idea, but I think we can write what you mean above in a shorter, clearer paragraph without repeating the same thing in several different ways. I suggest:

This section should highlight only the major changes made from the original production to subsequent productions. The section should discuss significant plot changes, cuts of entire songs, additions of new songs (not reprises), changes in lyrics of entire verses, or main character revisions (name, gender, cut from the show entirely, etc.)."

-- Ssilvers 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Songlists; Character lists

There is a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Opinions welcome. -- Ssilvers 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all of your readers are people watching the shows. As a community theatre actor who often visits the articles here to get an overview of the shows, I completely disagree with the idea of burying the character descriptions in the synopsis. Setting aside the idea that I might have to read half of the synopsis to get a basic description of the character, a character list contains information that's often clumsy to insert into the synopsis. Additionally, including a dump of the character description on first mention interferes with the flow of the synopsis itself. With a list, I can quickly scan it to see if there's anything I'd consider based on age, physical traits, vocal range, etc. --Joe Garrick (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bulletting song lists

I added that to the article stucture. I think it's something that's generally agreed upon, but if I'm being obtuse, we can discuss it. —  MusicMaker5376 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vocal ranges

As we discussed on the main talk page, I have added this guideline:

Vocal ranges: Vocal ranges for musicals articles should generally not be included in character lists unless a consensus of editors working on the article is obtained. Editors may remove the vocal ranges in the absence of such a consensus. For musicals that are similar to operas or operettas, however, such as Candide (operetta), or The Desert Song, it may be useful to include vocal ranges. In these cases, editors working on an article should attempt to reach a consensus and report the consensus on the article talk page.

Feel free to tweak/revise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Category guidelines

I recently added the category "musical film" to the article Little Shop of Horrors (musical) in accordance with the project guideline here. In conversation with Ssilvers, it was discussed that we usually only add that category to the musical article if the film does not have its own article. In this case, there is an article for the film already, and I agree it makes more sense to add the category there. Our guideline (as written) doesn't cover that option, though, for the musical article. Perhaps we should say, "If the musical was made into a musical film, and there is not already a separate article about the film, paste the text [[Category:Musical films]] into the musical article". Thomprod (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. I agree with this suggestion. If you look at [[Category:Musical films]], you should find only the film article, not also the musical. But if there is no film article, then we should have the cat in the musical article where the film is mentioned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need be quite so demeaning in the exact wording, but the principle of putting the category on the page that contains the actual content about the film is extremely sensible. Happy‑melon 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable, although that is one sneaky category that will have to be trimmed down every once in a while, as always.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added "and there is not already a separate article about the film," to the guideline. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly logical. Of course, when at all possible (while keeping Wikipedia's core policies/WP:V in mind) we should create the article for said musical film. ;-) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Note that our project's main page, we are still asking for people to create film articles for the film versions of:

• Don't Play Us Cheap
• Roberta
• I Married an Angel
• The Band Wagon
• Sarafina
• DuBarry Was a Lady

-- Ssilvers (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of those, but if I find some good reliable sources I'll try to create a few. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

-- Sounds all good. But I wonder: Category:musical films is used for musicals made into films. What about film musicals which are not based on stage material? Is it worth bringing that out as a distinction to those based on books? -- kosboot (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical films are outside the scope of this project. They fall within the scope of the film project. But I think that all musical films should go in the category, whether they are based on musicals or not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Category:musical films should be added to musical pages if their is no article for the film based on that musical. However, I also agree that we should ideally be moving toward having seperate film articles for all film versions of stage musicals. I have not been a good contributer lately :( but I will try to make more edits in the future. New Year's Resolution! Returning to the topic at hand, Category:musical films does imply that the only criterion for being in the category is that the film in question is a musical, regardless of its source material. Sslivers is correct in saying all musical films should be in the category under its current title. It would be nice to have some way of distinguishing between films based on stage musicals and original musical films, but that might overcomplicate the category system and infringe on the film project's turf. MarianKroy (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

Happy New Year, everyone. I added this to the Introduction/infobox guideline. I believe that it is consistent with the practice we have been carrying out in the articles. "The productions in the infobox should include the original production, the major productions in New York and/or London and U.S. or UK national tours. Other productions can be indicated by the catchall phrase "International productions" or "Major regional productions". Future productions should not be included in the infobox, but only added after the production opens." Please let me know if there is disagreement. This keeps the infoboxes from becoming long lists of productions. If a production is material, it should be described in the body of the article, rather than listed in the infobox. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Someone updated the Trivia template, and I tweaked the introductory language. Feel free to modify or discuss. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

I tweaked the Reception section in our Article Structure guidelines. I think we all agree that critical reception is required, not optional, and that box office or sales success should be mentioned if the information is available, right? If not, please discuss. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I added this sentence, which I think reflects what we have generally been doing. Feel free to comment or modify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Major Awards

I think these guidelines would benefit from a clearer description of which awards are appropriate for inclusion in the Awards section. Perhaps the Template:Infobox musical guidelines could be examined in conjunction with this. Given notability guidelines, I think it's important that only major awards be listed. These would definitely include, for Broadway, the Tonys and Drama Desk; for Off-Broadway, the Obies; for the U.S., the Pulitzer Prize, which has been won by several musicals; for the West End, the Oliviers and, if there's second London award of high merit, it should be included too (I'm not sure how significant the ones I've been able to find, the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award are).

As far as international productions go, apparently there are awards given in Australia (the Helpmann Awards) and Toronto (the Dora Mavor Moore Award), but again, I'm not sure how important they are considered to be. I think in France the Molière Award appears to be the most important theatre award; in Germany, it looks like the Nestroy Awards and Faust Awards are pretty important, but since most of the information about them is in German, it's hard for me to tell. MarianWilde (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MarianWilde. Only the really major awards should be included. Otherwise, at the bottom of each article about a very successful musical, there is a big fat list of awards that takes up as much or more space than the plot description or other much more important sections of the article. I would limit the awards we list exactly as Marian has suggested above, and we should get some advice from someone very familiar with British theatre awards, European theatre, etc. regarding others. But the biggest problem has been, IMO, inclusion of lesser American awards like Outer Critic's Circle Awards that are redundant with the above or (shudder) various audience choice awards. Can we get a consensus on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

From a London viewpoint, I'd say the three mentioned above are major. No other UK awards come to mind in that category. Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not looking at this post for awhile! Thanks for commenting, TimRiley. Assuming the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award are of equal merit, I think we can go ahead with the 3 British theatre awards listed above. I'm not sure what to do about national awards outside the U.S. and Canada, but since, as SSilvers said, the main issue appears to be preventing the inclusion of awards of dubious merit given to American productions, we could formulate a general guideline (covering all nations) saying that only major awards are to be listed and, for musicals performed in the U.S., these are limited to the Tonys, Drama Desk, Obies, and Pulitzer; and, for musicals performed in Britain, these are limited to the Oliviers, Evening Standard, and Critics' Circle. MarianWilde (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a couple sentences to the "Awards" section according to my suggestion in my previous post. See [1]. MarianWilde (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Links to IBDB and Article Structure

I'm a new wiki contributor, and still trying to learn the intricacies of editing as well as follow all the guidelines -- so I have 2 questions for the group so I can be helpful. First, it looks like most musicals have an External Link to IBDB (and we even have a Template to make that easy to do!). Is the goal that we want every article about a Broadway Musical to have such an External Link? Second, I see that we have an agreed upon article structure. Is the goal of the structure that articles should contain those elements in the order presented in the structure, or just contain the elements, regardless of sequencing. (In the words, if the list of musical numbers comes after the list of productions, does it matter, or should it be re-arranged?) MPW NYC (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in setting up that template, but I agree that all articles should follow that structure. It's purpose is to present information in a logical sequence and to foster a similar structure for all articles within this project. Of course, for articles on shows which are stubs, some sections will not be present, but I think any article on a show within this project should follow that structural prescription. Other projects (e.g. WikiProject Opera) also have a prescribed article structure. - kosboot (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, MPW. Well, we set up this article structure as a suggestion. It is not required, but many of us thought that it was logical and helpful. In my opinion, the plot and list of musical numbers should show up fairly early in the article structure, as that is what most of our readers are looking for. It makes sense that the sometimes lengthy list of productions (or at least productions *after* the original production) should follow those. For more examples, see some of the articles on musicals that have been promoted to Feature Article class, like The King and I and Carousel (musical). As for the IBDB, yes, I think it is a good idea to link the IBDB listing in the External Links if the musical has an IBDB listing. Is there a reason that you would not want to link the IBDB listing? An alternative might be the Playbill Vault. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I love IBDB and use it all the time. So my question about the IBDB links was prompted by noticing that some pages did NOT have them, or didn't use the IBDB Template (which I finally figured out how to use). For pages that didn't have any link, I have started adding one. But I have been holding off editing non-template style External Link to one using the Template, because I didn't know if that would be appropriate. But now i've noticed that some of the old-style links were broken, so I have started replacing them with the Template style link. I guess this is what it means to WP:BEBOLD! I'll definitely take a look at the Featured Articles you mention, Ssilvers. And when I find a musical page that's a WP:STUB, I can at least at a song list if it doesn't have one. I love that I can be helpful! MPW NYC (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! A song list is a good addition, but a plot summary is an even better one. Most readers that I have spoken to first come to our articles looking for the plot summaries, so if you can add any of those where missing, that would be super! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Good advice, Ssilvers. The song list is easy for me because I have a huge collection of cast album CDs. But then, I suppose a lot of people know a show just from the music, so the plot summary is what they would be looking for. That'll take a little more time and thought, but would definitely be worth the effort. BTW, if I can add both (a Plot Synopsis and Song List) to an article that already has the InfoBox and IBDB links, do you think that's enough to upgrade it past WP:STUB or WP:START status? MPW NYC (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wang (musical) is one of the first articles I created on Wikipedia (and have not gone back to add more information). Despite all the information (similar to what you are proposing) it is still a stub. - kosboot (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

[Left] MPW, I would say that once an article has a reasonable introduction containing information about the creators, director, choreographer and original cast, as well as when and where the musical premiered and how long it ran, list of musical numbers and synopsis that summarizes the whole plot, it is probably a start-class article, rather than a stub. Wang (musical), for example does not have a full-blown plot summary, so I agree that it is still a stub. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ankles Aweigh

Thanks, again, Ssilvers. This is very helpful. So two follow-up questions. Can you look at Ankles Aweigh -- I added the song list. It already has the plot (though it's short and listed in the "Overview" section, not a "Synopsis" section. It looks like everything else you mention is there. Do you think it's ready to upgrade from Stub to Start? And if you agree, how does the status of an article get changed? MPW NYC (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

MPW, good job with the musical numbers. I added a little plot in its own section, but it is still not an adequate plot summary. We need a plot section at least twice this long (preferably about 4x this long) that describes what happens act-by-act. I'd say it is still a stub, for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I embedded a few of the songs into the plot synopsis, and added a "Reception" section with quotes from a few reviews. I think that's the best I can do, since the plot is rather thin to begin with. But now I have a minor problem -- I made a reference link to something that was already in the footnotes, and now it shows twice. How do I make a ref in my text without doubling up the item in the footnotes section? MPW NYC (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good progress. I made some fixes, but your references are incomplete. The book references need page numbers, and all references require (1) author name, if available; (2) Title of the piece; (3) publisher name; (4) date of publication; and (5) if it is a web ref, then the access date. Can you fill out the refs, please? Can you fill out the description of act II at all -- how do the lovers and friends absolve him from the accusations? Do the reviews or theatre books offer any trace of what the other Act II hijinks are? Just another sentence or two (and filling out the refs) would, IMO, elevate this to Start class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice about references -- I wasn't aware of that and will fix them asap. Related to that, what is the proper way to list the liner notes to a recording in a reference? As for the plot, none of the reviews that I've found have been helpful explaining how act 2 resolves the plot, but I'll try to find something! MPW NYC (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To cite liner notes as a ref, give all the information about the issue of the recording with which the notes were included: For example: Smith, John. Liner notes to Ankles Aweigh, original cast recording (1955), CD issued 2004, Verve Records, ASIN B001NYTVC0 Note that information from a theatre programme should include (in addition to the other bibliographic information) the name of theatre where it played and the month and year in which the performance was seen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

[Left]I fixed my sloppy references, and removed your notations that they needed page numbers. Thanks for this advice. I don't think I've thought about proper footnoting since college! MPW NYC (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Better. Three things: First, note that you have the full cite to the 1991 Mandelbaum book under the list of References at the bottom, so in-line notes to that book should be short form: "Mandelbaum (1991), p. __". I did the same with Suskin. Second, for the "ref name" tag, you don't need quotes unless the ref name is more than one word. Third, for the liner notes cite, do the liner notes give the author's name? If so, please add it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again -- I'm definitely learning a lot. I had wondered why some books were in the References and the Footnotes, so seeing what you did makes sense. The CD liner notes do not indicate who the author is -- should I put "anonymous" or "author unknown" in that case? And where are you getting the ASIN numbers? i found a source for the Library of Congress ID numbers, but not ASIN. Would that be a suitable alternative? MPW NYC (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. First, as articles progress, people generally move the book references down to a section that can be marked Sources or References. Then they can use the shortform refs in the footnotes. You'll see different articles name these reference sections at the bottom differently -- notes, sources, references, bibliography, footnotes: It doesn't really matter as long as it is a helpful heading for the readers. Secondly, no, I do not think it is helpful to state what we do not know. If it causes confusion, you can add a hidden comment like this (see the edit screen, and it will appear): You can find ISBN and ASIN numbers on the Amazon.com listing. Make sure you are looking at the Amazon.com listing for the right edition. Do not use LoC ID numbers. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Great advice (about the hidden comments). Also saw your note on my Talk page, and before I do any more adding, I'll go back and add references for everything I've done so far (I was trying to be good, and have at least been describing my changes :) ). But I'm a little confused about the ref citation for a statement like "A CD recording was released by X company in X year". The WP:REF guidelines for citations of sound recordings is to list the name of the composer, work, title of album, recording company, year of release (etc.) , which makes it seem like the citation is a repeat of the statement (and something of a circular reference). For example, you flagged my comment in Merrily We Roll Along (musical), but if I follow the WP:REF guidelines, the citation would read "Sondheim, Stephen, Merrily We Roll Along, PS Classics (2012), ASIN B007Q1IT1I" -- which is basically the same as the statement it's referencing. Is that correct? Or, I can put a link to the recording company's website, but that doesn't feel right either. MPW NYC (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As you noted, the text only states the publisher and year, while the footnote gives lots more information. The small amount of repetition is no problem. A link to the recording company's website is not a good idea, because it is promotional. It would be very useful, however to link to an independent review from Allmusic.com, or a newspaper or magazine review (or several reviews, or a later assessment in a book about theatre): In The New York Times, critic John Smith stated: "Bernadette Peters' performance on this recording was widely praised, and the recording was considered by most critics to be the best cast recording of a Broadway musical released in the 1980s, earning the Grammy Award in 1986 and charting at No. 6 on the Billboard 200" -- Then cite the review article. That way, you are not just listing the album, but you are giving the readers some information about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with Tables

Is there a help section that explains the structure of a table? The Awards table for Sugar Babies has formatting errors and would love to fix it (the year column breaks at the wrong row), but my attempts to do so haven't worked. I'm sure there's a help section somewhere, but haven't found it yet. MPW NYC (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem was not just formatting errors (which was fixable by adjusting the "row span" numbers) -- there was a much bigger problem!: Michael Allen Davis did not get any nominations or awards for Sugar Babies. His nomination and award were for Broadway Follies. Davis was only a replacement player in Sugar Babies in 1982 and was not (IMO) really a notable person. By the way, I saw Sugar Babies on Broadway, and the first thing that happened was an announcement that "Miss Miller has a cold (audience groans), but she will appear tonight anyway! (audience cheers). Rooney and Miller were already has-beens, well past their primes, but they were a nostalgic hit among older audiences in this nostalgic revue of (relatively clean) recreations of American burlesque dance and comedy routines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't even looked at the accuracy of the data! I just saw the weird look at the table. I'd still like to learn who to work with these tables. I knew the problem was with the row spans, but every time I tried it, it only made things worse. Does Wiki have a help page that explains how these work? I did not see Sugar Babies (I was in high school and was only beginning to fall in love with Broadway, and didn't know much about their careers at the time. I wish I had seen it though! I saw a few shows in the 70s with my parents, and my attendance really started big-time when I came back in the late 80s. MPW NYC (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone else help MPW? I don't know much about table formatting -- I've just fooled around with them enough to do simple things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

All American

I've been working on the article All American, adding some information and references, and re-organizing the original content to fit our article structure. Let me know if you think I did it well, and whether you think this article can be upgraded from WP:START status or not? If so, what is the "process" for doing so? MPW NYC (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is nearly ready: to move up to C-class, it just needs a few more references, especially in the Background section. See where I have added cn tags throughout. Frankly, I am a little worried that the Background section is a cut and paste from a copoyrighted work, which, if true would require it to be re-written. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that's the one area I didn't do anything to, but I see what you mean. I may not be able to do anything right away, but I will see what I can do. MPW NYC (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have said to you before, the key to Wikipedia is sourcing. If you see a paragraph without any sources whatsoever, it should cry out to you "I am a serious problem. Help me!". Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Page name

Nitpick: Looking at a list of several projects' similar guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Names and orders for section headings, this page here is the only one not following WP:TITLEFORMAT by using a capital "S"; it really ought to be WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article structure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection, if you think the move is useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)