Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Importance assessment

Hi, I have worked through about half of the articles which have no importance assessment, changing the quality status where appropriate. Many of the stubs are in bad shape, with little or no referencing, I have added tags as appropriate and nominated a handful for WP:PROD, where notability is slim or non-existent. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

All articles with project banners have now been assessed, which will make keeping up with new articles easier. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks! thats lots of work, thanks for putting the effort in, that is terrific! --Mdukas (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! I have one question though, what warrants a play to be mid/high importance and other low importance. Just taking recent examples such as Jerusalem (play) and and also the classics A View From The Bridge and All My Sons all being low importance, where some other plays have the mid importance?? Is there a criteria for what defines importance?Mark E (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't actually reassess any of those, I just stuck to those that were un-assessed. The criteria at WP:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment are what I used as they are determined by consensus of this project.. On those grounds, I would change the latter two to High (and have done so). Jeruslaem is quite a new play and is rather more difficult to assess. If it is the subject of some serious research and scholarly comment then it could be mid or even high, but at present it is not very well known to theatre goers outside of London. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Huge lists of nominations for GA

There's a discussion at WT:GAN about how some topics have huge lists of articles waiting for GA reviews - including Theatre, which is part of "Theatre film and drama" at Wikipedia:GAN#Theatre film and drama. Some ways to improve this:

• Ask your descendant WikiProjects to get involved in the discussions and actions below.
• At the discussion at WT:GAN, let us know how you think the situation can be improved - or whether you're happy with things as they are.
• Can your members do more GA reviews? This should only be done by members who are interested in doing the job well, as a poorly-produced review will probably need to be re-done at WP:GAR.
• There's a possible COI if your members review Theatre and Films articles. However, there's also a backlog at Music, and if Music review Theatre and Films articles while Theatre and Films review Music articles there's no COI. --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing theatre topics

I've updated my list of missing theatre topics - Skysmith (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You can take out British Actor's Equity Association, I have created it as a reditect to Equity (trade union), which is now it is now known. –– Jezhotwells (talk)

Most Valuable Players (film) AFD

Just wanted to bring this AFD discussion regarding the film Most Valuable Players, a documentary about an award ceremony for high school musical theater. Seeking input. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

reassessment of Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)

I have greatly enhanced Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) and would like a reconsideration of its importance rating.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The importance rating describes how important the subject of the article is in relation to theatre as a whole, not anything to do with the quality of the article. "Low" importance describes how important that particular theatre in Chicago is in relation to every conceivable topic about theatre, as compared to, say Hamlet or Drama. It doesn't reflect in any way an assessment of the work you've done on the article. The GA status describes that. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Vanbrugh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind (play)

Judging by the amount of recent vandalism, Inherit the Wind (play) seems to be a school set text. As I don't know the play, I find it difficult to say whether the current version is sound or to find a reliable version to revert to, if needed. Could members of this project take a look? The article may need to be semi-protected. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some recent vandalism. I am not familiar with the play but it looks to be in the same state now as it was in March. I have placed it on my watchlist. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability of a play

Guys

Do you have any general guidance on how to establish notability of a play? Is there anything about awards, types and numbers of newspaper review, length of run or something devolved from the theatre that the performance was committed at?

TIA

ALR (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the general notability guideline should be satisfied and I would suggest that the criteria at WP:Notability (books)#Criteria (adapted for plays rather than books) give guidance to establishing notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

I have nominated 2008 in theatre and 2009 in theatre for deletion, as I feel the "years in theatre" thing is going nowhere, and hasn't been active for awhile. These are the only two articles in the scope and I can't see any work being done to create the other years. There are more comments in the AFD page at why I think they should be deleted. Please comment Here -Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in theatreMark E (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the article on American drama?

I notice that American Literature had no mention of Eugene O'Neill or Tennessee Williams or of dramatic literature in genre (until I added them just now); moreover, the theatrical link given on the article, Theater of the United States, is mostly about performance and has little discussion of dramatic literature. Is there another article that covers this topic, or does one need to be created? (I added a short section in the American lit article, but the discussion page suggests that the article is focused more on prose fiction.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any such article so creating such an article would be useful. Would it be called American Drama or Drama of the United States? Theater of the United States appears to be more of an historical summary. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that Theatre of France is pretty good about blending performance and literature, so I'll try to expand the Theater of the United States article first. I just placed a "missing" tag at the top of the page; maybe this will inspire some editors. I went ahead and set up redirects for the two titles I listed above. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Italics permissible in titles of articles on books?

See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:Use_of_italics_in_article_titles. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential Changes to Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listed under their commonly-used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the Writing About Fiction manual of style guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maly Theatre

Can we have someone look at Maly Theatre (Moscow)?

It's rated as a stub when it's clearly more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenLineMan (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have assessed as C class. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Theatre articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Theatre articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

The Oast Theatre, Tonbridge article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rules of the game

Just created The Rules of the Game (play) by Luigi Pirandello. I believe it would count as mid importance, but if someone wants to assess it as something else, be my guest :) BillMasen (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Have assessed it low importance. It doesn't seem to have won any major awards of have much information on it at all.Mark E (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)

Requested move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nurul Momen

Some time ago I created a stub for Nurul Momen also referred to as "Father of Bangladeshi theatre" after an initial article was deleted as copyright violation and I had to decline the refund since a copyright claim remained unresolved. Now some accounts have reinserted the same text. Maybe it would help to swiftly expand what seems to be really a fine topic. Did you e.g. know that he wrote the first full evening single-character play?[1] In any case, I'll keep it watchlisted if any issues arise. Sources are also listed on the talk page. (posted also to the Begali project.) --Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre

Hi, I am a person from Germany. Possibly somebody can look on the discussion of the article: Audio theatre, because you have made statement in the past. with friendly greetings, Soenke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please if somebody will have the time and knows anything to it, please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what anybody would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:17th-century plays

I have eliminated most article members of Category:20th-century plays and Category:19th-century plays (after first checking they were present in the relevant Category:Plays by year). I was intending to do the same for Category:17th-century plays but was surprised to find rather a large number; happy to proceed but wanted to check I wasn't missing something ! GrahamHardy (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The seventeenth century was possibly a peak for playwriting in English at least. I am sure that what you are doing is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All done! GrahamHardy (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Slice of life and Slice of life story

There is a discussion regarding the merging of Slice of life story into Slice of life. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

An Ideal Husband

I don't know how many people are watching An Ideal Husband, but as File:Oscar Wilde - An Ideal Husband - You brute! You coward!.jpg will on POTD on Jan 3, 2011, the article will be featured on the Main Page that day and it's not in great shape (it has no references, the plot summary is really long, and it could use a section on its impact on other works). I realize people are busy with end-of-year celebrations, but it would be nice if the article could be touched up a bit in the next few days. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is currently playing in London. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Sorry if this has come up already, but which date do we use for purposes of categorization and lead (ie. "1765 plays" or "is a 1765 play by...") - when it premiered? when it was first published? no standard? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I always thought when it had it's world premier performance/press night.Mark E (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination - Patrice Pavis

Patrice Pavis, a Professor in Theatre Studies and theatre theorist, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you can find it here [2]. - ManicSpider (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Off Broadway or Off-Broadway?

An editor has been changing articles by deleting the hyphen. But these two refs both show it with a hyphen: Internet Off-Broadway Database and The League of Off-Broadway Theatres and Producers. Also, Actors Equity uses the hyphen (see this), as does Playbill. Would people kindly comment at Talk:Off Broadway? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC of interest to this project

Although it's framed in terms of books and films, the question in this RfC will naturally be of interest to those writing articles about material which is adapted from one medium to another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of light costume and make up?

Meaning of light costume and make up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.28.227 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please enlighten us as to what article you are talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Elizabethan Theatre inactive

FYI, after no activity on the project's talk page, and no apparent activity related to the project for years, I've just tagged WikiProject Elizabethan theatre as inactive. I suspect all editors interested in the area got sucked up by WikiProject Shakespeare (which itself is in desperate need of more editors; please do come join us if you're at all interested!). If anyone would like to revive this WikiProject you can just remove the {{Inactive}} template on the project page and have at it. --Xover (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Would changing the order of the topics improve this article?

I read this article for the first time and was put off by plunging immediately into a controversy over how amateur theatre was undermining professional theatre. This discussion and the discussion under "Parody" is all well and good, but I think the article would be better if both were transposed to the second half. The plodding general reader (such as myself), when opening an article on amateur theatre, after a BRIEF discussion of the distinction between it and professional theatre, is quite content to then learn about the history of amateur theatre and current state of the pastime. The long back and forth about amateur versus professional (and the assertions of superiority of the latter) have caused this article to be tagged as possibly having problems with neutrality. Until editors can decide how to definitively solve the neutrality problem, at least it won't hit the poor reader first thing if the controversy is transposed to the second half.

Also, is no-one writing Ph.D. dissertations on other aspects of amateur theatre, e.g. the demographics of the participants, economic studies regarding the question of whether they truly undercut professional theatre, the history in various ethnic groups? Just asking. I am an immunologist, so this is all outside my area, but I was hoping to learn more from this article than I did.

This is my first post. I don't know how to edit/block transpose, nor would I presume to do anything so massive single-handedly. Maybe it isn't even possible. Now, if I could only find those tildes. Chestnutoakmaple (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you provided a link to the article in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The article in question was amateur theatre thanks. Chestnutoakmaple (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

I have listed the above article for peer review at WP:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2 and would appreciate comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger needs comment

Please add your thoughts at Talk:Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feelin' So Sad#merger tag. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability; Are IBDB and BroadwayWorld databases "Reliable sources"?

I recently undertook the task of reviewing The King and I at WP:GAC (see Talk:The King and I/GA2). A lot of progress was being made until two issues arose. The combination of my lack of expertise on the topic and a long-standing disagreement has led to the withdrawal of the nomination. The two issues are as follow:

• I was not sure which performances should be in the revivals section and how to organize it. At first, I thought the best organization would be a Broadway theatre subsection, a West End theatre subsection, and a national tour subsection. However the content was sort of a tangled mess in this regard because some tours would be in more than one of these subsections. Alternatively, chronological (which is the approximate current presentation) was acceptable. However, I remain confused on what constitutes "other major revivals" beyond Broadway, West End and national tours. There are several other revivals listed and I am not sure how to judge the comprehensiveness of this content in regards to WP:WIAGA (3a). I started bouncing around the internet and found a source that enumerates major Off-broadway productions here. In my mind this seems to be a reasonable arbiter on the WIAGA 3a criteria. Anything missing from this list should be added to the text although I do not feel Off-Broadway productions should be added to the infobox. I think the project as a whole should reach some sort of consensus on what constitutes comprehensiveness in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• The nominator Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and Ssilvers (talk · contribs) seem to have run up against each other in the past and again here on the issue of content within clearly encyclopedic revivals. It seems that there is disagreement on whether all bluelinked performers who had notable roles in these productions should be included in the article with a large part of the disagreement stemming from subjects who appear in IBDB.com, but who are not otherwise reliably sourced. It seems that Wehwalt has been removing such subject as fast as Ssilvers can add them. In the current case, Ssilvers seems to be logging such removals at Talk:The King and I. I believe that all IBDB credited performers who are bluelinked on WP should be included if they had a major role, but Wehwalt wants Ssilvers to be required to provide his own sources to add such content. Project consensus on this issue would also be helpful--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think that productions should be described in chronological order. The question is, what productions to describe. If a show has only had a few professional productions, I'd say: discuss them all. If it has had numerous productions, then I would only discuss the Broadway, West End, and other "major" productions. As to this general point, I think the WP:MUSICALS project has generally been in agreement, although each play or musical has a different production history. In the case of The King and I, I think that the selection of productions described is currently approximately right. There are a few that we can discuss specifically, but I think we only need to describe Off-Broadway, regional and foreign productions if they had very substantial runs, major stars and/or won major awards, or if the production was particularly significant/famous/notorious in some other way. You can make a general statement, like we make at Hair (musical), that the musical has been produced in "most of the countries in the world", or "over x countries" and in "over x languages", or some such statement, if you have a reliable source for it. You can also say, if it is so, that the musical is a popular choice among amateur and/or school groups, where that information is available from a reliable source. As for the infobox, I think it should be shorter and only list B'way, West End and other *very* major productions. As to the other issue, Wehwalt was displeased that I had added information without, at the same time, adding WP:Reliable sources in-line for each fact; and he does not feel that IBDB will be regarded as a Reliable source at FAC. Therefore, he deleted this information. Now, at Tony's urging, he is working to add the information into the article, together with references to clearly reliable sources.

I agree with Tony that performers (1) in "major" productions, (2) who had a major role in those productions, (3) especially if they are bluelinked -- should be noted in musicals articles. If they were in the original B'way or West End production and had a major role, or if they won a Tony/Olivier/Drama Desk award for the role, I think they should be mentioned even if they are not blue linked. Same for directors and choreographers of major productions; original designers, but not designers of revivals unless they either won a major award for the revival or are both blue-linked and significantly discussed in the reviews. Again, the regular editors at WP:MUSICALS have generally agreed on these principles. I agree that sources for this information must be added in-line. But it would be much easier to reference these simple facts if the IBDB and BroadwayWorld databases were accepted as WP:Reliable sources. It appears that both IBDB and BroadwayWorld review and editorially control all content before it is added to their databases, unlike the IMDB. Can we get a consensus on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no particular reason IBDB can't be considered a reliable source for most non-controversial information in its scope. See the only previous discussion of this at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Xover (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion -

Yes, there it says the following:

Perhaps this has been brought up before, but the archive search didn't turn up anything: is the Internet Broadway Database a reliable source, particularly for BLP information (DOBs, etc)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per this, they appear to collect primary sources, and not accept direct user contributions like IMDB. I'd say they'd be ok for non-controversial BLP data like DOBs unless proven otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do others agree with Xover and Jclemens? I certainly do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, IMDB should be good fro credits, DOB. -- Comment added 19 February 2011 by Jezhotwells (talk)

• Comment: (NOTE: this comment is very strictly limited to the IBDB issue only, I will not comment on anything else in this discussion.) I agree that the IBDB should be considered a reliable source for cast, creatives, production information, and any other production items not specifically noted in my comment, and non-controversial BLP info. I base my decision on this statement in the "About" section of IBDB:[About]. I have no comment on broadwayworld.com as a source, I do not know enough about their policies and procedures to give an informed opinion.JeanColumbia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me say this. Ssilvers grossly lowered the quality of the article by adding information he claims is true, without a source, which had the effect of deceiving the reader into believing it was sourced information. He did this repeatedly. His edit summary was invariably some variation on "ce". What would a reader think of us if he checked information against sources once Ssilvers got done with his "work"? I was not watching the article at the time, and it was some time until I did. He objected to the removal of the unsourced material he had inserted, rather vociferously. When I expressed a willingness to do the work he was disinclined to do, but which was required under WP:V, he responded by [3] demanding a lengthy list of changes. It goes without saying he expected others to do the work of adding, and sourcing (perhaps optional in his view), his demands. I have no interest in working with someone who so grossly violates the Three Pillars. Frankly, were I an uninvolved admin, I'd have issued him a stiff warning and given his disinclination to change his ways, eyed the block button. Ssilvers has wasted several days of my time and I decline to allow him to waste any more. On his head be it. As for IMDB, I have only passing interest, given those circumstances, but I do not see that the About page means that the fact checking is sufficient, and therefore oppose any use of it or broadwayworld.com, and suggest this discussion be moved to WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the content inclusion issue could be solved if Ssilvers (talk · contribs) sourced his content as he added it. Since it seems resolved that IBDB is a valid source, he should readd his desired content with proper attribution to IBDB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will return the state of the article to how it was with Ssilvers' additions in it, and he can source whatever he wants.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's been done. It's up to Ssilvers now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will add the sources and the Production info described on the talk page. Give me a couple of days. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What he actually did was revert to the version with the sources I had done, with a slight change. Talk about chutzpah.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] It has been my understanding that although for Wikipedia, the IMBD (films) is not regarded as a reliable source, the IBDB (Broadway) has always been regarded as reliable. I have access to a reasonably extensive theatre library and have not yet found any cause to demur at any IBDB citation I have seen in Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on this page IBDB seems like a reliable source to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Off-Broadway theatres

I have created Template:Off-Broadway theatres from Category:Off-Broadway theaters. I am not an expert, but anyone is free to format it to look a bit more like Template:Broadway theatres.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling: list of theaters/theatres? (Orthography)

Has this topic been discussed before? I notice in Category:Lists of theatres that most of the list-pages are spelled "theatre" but that two of them are spelled "theater"? Should these pages have a consistent spelling, or is the issue not all that important? I got confused by the discrepancy while using the search box to find "list of theaters in Los Angeles". Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a WP:ENGVAR situation. The UK, and other parts of the world, spell the word theatre. In the US the word is usually (though not always) spelled theater. Thus, you will see the different spellings throughout Wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times, including recently, at WP:MUSICALS. We have always taken the position that, since "theatre" is correct and accepted everywhere (even though non-theatre people prefer "theater" in the US), it is more appropriate in an international encyclopedia to use the spelling "theatre" for the genre. For theater buildings located in the US, if the official name of the building is "X Theater", of course, we use "theater". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good thank for the info. Does that mean that the name of the categories that use "theater" should be changed? If so I think that would be a good bot job. If not then they are fine the way they are. Does that answer your question Aristophanes68? MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since one only gets to the categories by clicking on something, the spelling doesn't seem important there. So I'd follow WP:IFITAINTBROKE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I was more interested in renaming the page List of theaters in New York City to make the spelling consistent. I was actually taught as a theatre major that the "theater" spelling is used for the buildings themselves, so I was surprised to see how many building pages listed under the -re spelling. Thanks for the info! Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They are rarely, if ever, spelled "theater" outside of North America. So, I suggest leaving the spelling as it is. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, some of this info is already at Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres (note the spelling of nearly all of the theater names) and Off-Broadway (see the template at the bottom). All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See also American and British English spelling differences for a full explanation of -re and -er. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias in Astor Place Riot article

The article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astor_Place_Riot Illustrates extreme bias against Forrest in favor of Macready. This is very surprising considering that the source most often cited is authored by two well respected New York historians. Regardless, one account which is also very biased, but towards Forrest would help balance the wiki article, is here: http://www.merrycoz.org/voices/astor/RIOT.HTM

The nature of the event is very culturally sensitive, so citing the details of the story primarily from one perspective is simply not trustworthy.

I'm currently working on a project covering this piece of history and may at some point in the near future try to contribute directly to the article. But for now just wanted to raise the issue for attention.

Mathetos (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability

There is a deletion discussion today on a 1915 Broadway play here. I voted "keep" asserting that Broadway plays should be automatically notable (as are certain other categories, for example state senators). I was wondering if this issue has already been discussed and resolved on this board (sorry, didn't spot a search box to examine the archives). Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey which concerns Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest

in which the protester wrote a quotation from the US Constitution's 4th Amendment on his bare chest in magic marker as a planned performance and body adornment display of political, social and technological import, expecting it to be displayed when he was subjected to routine search, and intending to stimulate national discussion and debate through rebroadcast via news media and subsequent personal appearances after the dermographic exhibit, expressing his message;

and proposals being discussed there for a potential merged or more general additional article on US civilian aiport security regulation issues and public reactions, perspectives on and by foreign travelers, sociology, law, cultural phenomenology, and international context. The later detection of Fukushima radiation at US airports, which is not yet mentioned in this article, is also being discussed as a subtopic to be added into a general article. Separately from the 'criiticms' subsection on the US Transportation Security Administration alone.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't touch my junk is a second related AfD regarding another article which also presents a US airport bodily search protest.

A potential general article not only on protest but on efficacy, social context, and events which are of national and international note in these regards would also include breaking 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents news such as Japan radiation sets off O'Hare airport alarms -- CBS News Chicago station reports trace amounts of radiation clinging to flights from country ravaged by earthquake, tsunami:

"Trace amounts of radiation from Japan have been detected in Chicago, CBS News station WBBM-TV reports.

Travelers coming in from Japan on Wednesday triggered radiation detectors at O'Hare International Airport as they passed through customs. Only very small amounts of radiation were detected.

...Feds move more radiation monitors to West Coast...

"We are aware of the radiation," said Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride. "We are adding screenings and precautionary measures."

...Radiation was also found in luggage and on passengers on flights from Japan.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and other city officials wouldn't provide any additional details, saying federal authorities were handling the situation.

"Of course the protection of the person coming off the plane is important in regards to any radiation and especially within their families," Daley said at an unrelated event." [more at] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey [and in the original CBS article March 17, 2011]. - Pandelver (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice. I visited the AFD and !voted delete. I'd like to congratulate you on your efforts to post this on every conceivable Wikiproject. I'm sure the result will be getting this piece of trivia off the encyclopedia much sooner. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Chekhov Studio London

The article Michael Chekhov Studio London has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Reads like an advert; no indication of notability; tagged for two years now

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fictional fictional character

The article Fictional fictional character has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No such concept exists; unreferenced for 4 years; contains original research written in essay form; no reliable sources use this term - it's been invented by Wikipedia

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the PROD as this article has already been to WP:AFD, result no consensus. If you wish to renominate there, please do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty byzantine. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional fictional character (2nd nomination) DionysosProteus (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Non-fictional character

The article Non-fictional character has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No such concept in use in standard sources (a character is by definition fictional, even when based on a real person); article has no citations to support its claims; has been tagged for more than a year; unsourced since 2006

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion notice

This is probably of relevance to our project too - a proposed deletion of List of games from Whose Line Is It Anyway? is in progress here. I assume it's relevant to improvisation practitioners. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pleasure of His Company

WP has an article on the 1961 film, but the play had a long run on Broadway in 1958-1959, directed by and starring Cyril Ritchard, and was revived many times thereafter, often with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.. Does anyone want to write an article about it? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

British Library editathon with focus on English literature and Drama

Hi WikiProject Theatre editors,

The British Library is planning an editathon on 4 June with a specific focus on English and Drama and they will be providing access to rare archive material on a variety of authors and playwrights. If you can make it to the British Library and participate in the editathon, please see the page on the Wikimedia UK wiki. If you've got any questions about it, please ask User:Fæ or post about it on the talk page on the Wikimedia UK wiki. Please also tell editors you think might be interested in participating. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - The Kid (musical)

• The Kid (musical)

New article, The Kid (musical). Feedback and suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Theatrology

Members' input would be appreciated at Talk:Theatrology where there is a discussion concerning the naming of this article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "production"

I was under the impression that a "production" of a play or musical covered the run of performances of the same script using the same cast, director, choreography etc. I've now seen it used to describe individual performances... eg "Fred Blogs is a director who has directed 6 productions" (even though they were all exactly the same). Could anyone educate me? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct (speaking as someone who has produced work off off Broadway). If I put up play Y at theatre X for six performances, that is one production. If I bring it back a couple months later, at the same or another theatre, with some or all the same cast, I would call that a separate production though. I think the key is whether I had to re-recruit the cast, rehearse it again, etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... the page I'm looking at is this one: Ray Jeffery. I'm have little experience in theater, but 1200 productions seems a little excessive, even over a 40 year period. An average of 30 productions a year? I assume he means performances. If "Ray's career in the theatre is second to none and encompasses over four decades" presumably there would be some internet database that should list him? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides the obvious WP:PEACOCK words and the like, thirty real productions a year, year in and out is not possible. Plays done by amateurs typically rehearse about a month in my experience, because the people are all working day jobs and can't rehearse day in and day out. Thirty productions would mean a play every week and a half. Nobody could keep up that kind of pace all year long x forty years; it doesn't make any sense.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I had guessed, but thought it best to ask in case this theater thing was a lot easier than it looked :) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The word can be tricky. There are easily more than 30 productions of Peter Pan per year in the U.S. alone. That they are each done by a separate production company, theatre company, et al. is where the definition can be found. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Overlapping categories

Help: I'm not sure whether there's enough difference between Category:Non-fiction books about theatre and Category:Theatre non-fiction to warrant keeping them both. Thoughts? Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aristophanes, it looks like I created Category:Theatre non-fiction to hold a few articles, whilst unaware that Category:Non-fiction books about theatre already existed somewhere else. The latter has since been moved into the Theatre hierarchy, so we can see duplication, and the two cats should probably be merged. I am not fixed in this view - it is only how it seems to me ;) Bards (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Plays by setting--use or delete?

Category:Plays by setting is almost empty. Do we want to fill it? Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How would we define "setting"? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My vote goes to Delete. Such a useless categoryMark E (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been defining setting as the location(s) in which the play takes place. Currently, plays are being sorted into the most localized "X in fiction" available (e.g., "NYC in fiction" but "Florida in fiction" or "Southwestern United States in fiction" or "Costa Rica in fiction", etc.). There are already parallel categories "Novels set in X", "Films set in X" and "Television shows set in X" that are part of the "Locations in fiction" category tree; see, for instance, the breakdown of Category:United States in fiction. Do we want to create a parallel "Plays set in X" category, or do we want to leave the plays mixed together with the short stories under the "X in fiction" categories? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. There is always the risk of Category:Plays set in zip code 89120 on a corner by a library that has a broken window on a Wednesday before noon but that's probably not the question :) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Expert needed: Boulevard Theatre

Howdy. Trying to work out if the links to Boulevard Theatre in Figge Norling and Sarah Townsend refer to the Parisian Boulevard theatre, or if there two or more similarly named theatres. I'll hold my hand up and say I know little or nothing on the subject - is there anyone here who can shed some light on the matter? Ta. - TB (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Townsend reference is a bit odd because the "Boulevard Theatre" was actually the upstairs of the Raymond Revuebar in Soho. Eddie Izzard's Raging Bull comedy club was downstairs or next door or something...you see the problem...hence the Sarah connection. Some sources (all highly questionable) for your digging pleasure...

• Paul Raymond(owner) obituary
• Fringe Theater(Britian) in The Cambridge guide to theatre By Martin Banham (pg. 400)
• Selected from April 1991...
• The Titi Tudorancea Bulletin: Soho

The only thing I know about Figge Norling is he owes me fifty bucks.

-- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Hi, Harold Pinter has been nominated for featured article status. I would be grateful for comments at the discussion. Thanks. --Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs a spotcheck on sources, close paraphrasing and a prose review. cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Category overlap: Drama v. Theatre

We have competing categories in Category:Drama by nationality and Category:Plays by nationality. Is there a good way to distinguish what belongs where, or should these be merged into one category? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with Plays by nationality and kill off "drama". A play can be a dramatic work i.e. Plays can be categorized by dramatic structure(s). Drama is not a dramatic structure. IMHO. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I realized tonight that in the English and Chinese-English play categories, drama is used to cover TV shows as well, the way we might talk about a TV series being a "drama" series, even though it's not a play in the performance sense. I removed some of those categories, but do we want to use drama in this way more generally? Aristophanes68 (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is generally a good idea to consider what other topic area might be using the categories when making these determinations, particularly as the categories should not necessarily be the most perfect and specific form of navigation for the theatre wonks, but rather for the general public. For the former TV and movies are obvious overlapping areas, and as noted in a thread below, opera, musical theatre, and possibly also various literature-related areas are potential candidates. For the latter, categorization in overly specific theatre terms—as opposed to more general terms, more likely to be understood by the reader—is an active detriment to its purpose.
But for all that, the category system is badly underutilized, so any system that is internally consistent and can accomodate something like the magical 80% of the relevant articles, is probably “good enough”. --Xover (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that it's only used that way in three subcats: British, Hong Kong and Singapore. So I didn't even realize the problem until midway through my tagging, which, with AWB, had all those titles scattered throughout a list of 2000. Sigh.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Why does {{Infobox Musical}} have an awards parameter and {{Infobox Play}} does not. It seems that for most major critic circles there is almost one play award for every musical award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm, the parameter could be added, I guess. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Category:Historical plays

"Historical plays" could mean plays based on actual events or simply plays set in historical periods. Which definition should be used for Category:Historical plays (especially since there is also a Category:Plays based on actual events and a Category:Plays based on actual people, as well as Category:Biographical plays, etc.)? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Hmmm...They are all worthy of deletion, IMHO. Maybe we should reassess the category structure for plays? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you don't want to delete them totally, because they're part of the "works by source" category tree, providing the "based on reality" element. We have "historical novels", which usually means novels set in a previous time period and not necessarily novels based on actual events, so the question is whether "historical plays" is parallel to the novel genre. Also, we don't want to delete them completely because we really don't have enough play categories as it is right now--or more accurately, we haven't been making good use of the few categories we have. I've been going through plays by year the last couple of days trying to add things like location and time of setting, genre, topic, source material, etc., but a lot of play articles are seriously under-categorized. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the plays are seriously under-categorized. I'll throw this out... A play set on a historic event would usually be a "History play". A play set in specific historical period would be a "Period Play". However, these are secondary classifications that may not have much if any importance to the play. Plays are about human interaction with other nouns and are not written to be read as "literature". i.e. A "history play" is about the characters emotional interaction with the event, not the historical ramifications the event itself.

I guess what I'm saying is...Should plays primary be classified by structure, genre, school, and the like? If so, should I start gathering a list of such categories?

Regardless, how can I help? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So a "period play" would be analogous to "historical novel"? And "historical play" would be one based on real events? Do we then need to merge the categories of "historical plays" and "plays based on actual events"? There's also the question of where all the Category:War plays fits into this: some are based on real events, others are fictional but set against the backdrop of real wars, etc. As for genre, we have a few genre categories set up, but I'm not sure how many others we need; I don't see "tragicomedy" for one.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: There's Category:Period pieces, which is not being used--we could move things over there. There's also a list of Category:Theatrical genres, if you want to look at that. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "Period play" would be roughly analogous to "historical novel" but it depends on the play and how far we want to take the analogy. Take Shakespeare, classification of the plays... Henry V is a history play, Julius Caesar is a tragedy, neither is considered a period play/piece. Maybe Category:Theatrical genres would work better? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now I'm working mostly on establishing the nationality of the play (and that's not always a simple question--do you go by the author?), the geographical setting and time period of the play (London in fiction, 1946 in fiction, etc.), obvious genres and any source connection (plays based on novels, based on films, based on Arthurian legends, based on actual events, etc.). I'll leave the genre stuff up to the rest of you, but it might be worth looking into the "historical plays" and "actual events" categories and adding some explanations on the category pages about how the categories differ. And let me warn you: just to do one year of "200X plays" is taking several hours; this is slow going! Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What lists are you using? I'm happy to help but not sure where to start. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a play "Based on actual people" and "biographical plays" the same thing?

Not necessarily, consider PO Enquist's Night of the Tribades. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Both Kurt and Sid and The Habit of Art are about real people in fictional situations. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for stage actors

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in contributing to this discussion, which seeks to improve the current WP:ENT guideline to better judge the notability of stage actors. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Opera articles in scope?

Do this project consider articles on operas to be within its scope? I noticed a mass-bannering underway today with this project's banner being added to at least two operas, e.g. Alfred (opera), Dead Man Walking (opera). The first one began life as a masque and was expanded first to an oratorio and then an opera. The second was never a play, although its libretto (not the same thing) was written by Terrence McNally who is also a playwright. I don't care one way or another, but just a warning that there almost 2000 articles on individual operas.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That was probably my doing. I was using AWB and looking at anything categorized as a play, and I'm sure I missed a few operas, movies and TV series that had been labeled as plays. Feel free to revert as you see fit. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think the banners should be on any operas or musicals, as those are covered by other arts projects, and so I have removed the banners from the articles that I noticed were musicals (although I doubt I caught them all). Plus, when you tag an article that already has other project tags, it would be nice if you considered what order the tags should be in, rather than just putting the theatre tag at the top. Shouldn't the most relevant project (that is, the one whose members have worked on the article the most) be at the top? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you also tagged numerous television series and radio shows with this project's tag. Shouldn't the tag only go on live theatre works? I'll leave that to others. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Television series and radio shows should not be classified as theatre. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The radio shows have all been tagged under "plays" already, so they got thrown in with the mix when I created the list via AWB. Same with the musicals and with the TV series, which I didn't catch until I was well underway (I tagged about 2000 articles yesterday using AWB and the "plays by" categories). Those TV series are all from Britain, Hong Kong and Singapore, and were listed as a subcats of "Plays by nationality", so when AWB created the list, they were mixed in with the stage plays and many of them escaped my notice. I thought I had removed all of them before making the list, but I wasn't aware that the Singapore and Hong Kong cats even existed until I noticed "(TV series)" showing up in the list. I tried to revert as many as I could, but I'm sure I missed a few. I'll look through those two TV cats again and try to revert any others that I find. It was an honest mixup involving subcats that should never have been listed under "plays" in the first place. Apologies. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. As you say, the cats on those articles seem to be wrong. Can anyone review and fix them? My advice is, if you're going to do a mass tagging, to do just a few dozen the first day and see if anyone objects to what you're doing before proceeding. Plus, as I said, the tag shouldn't just be tossed at the top; if in doubt add it *below* the existing project tags on the page. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them all. I can use AWB to find the articles in those cats that are tagged with the Theatre WProject and then remove them pretty easily. I doubt that doing a dozen articles the first day would have brought anyone to the problem, since the categories were buried and wouldn't have come to the surface that way. As to the placement of the tag, AWB puts it up top automatically; there are ways to manually move the tag elsewhere on the page, but that's a bit unfeasible when you're trying to tag 2,000+ articles. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the two operas had play categories as well as opera ones. I've removed them from the articles now. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have likewise removed banners from Pygmalion (Rousseau)‎, The Stronger (opera)‎, and The Gypsy Prince‎.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rousseau's Pygmalion is spoken drama, though. Doesn't it belong here? Other plays with notable music, like Peer Gynt, aren't covered by WP:Opera but rather by WP:Theatre. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Rousseau's Pygmalion is a play (with musical accompaniment} and belongs in this project. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Earnest

There is a conversation going on at Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest#A revival "will be shown in cinemas in June 2011", debating weather or not the recent Roundabout Theater revival staring Brian Bedford should be mentioned in the article. Additional comments on it are welcome. JDDJS (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of plays

I have been going through the un-assessed articles, two hundred odd done, only 2,800 odd left! There seem to be a number of non-notable plays. Wikipedia:Notability (books) gives a close approximation of what such a guideline would look like. Should we have a discussion here about this? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that the guidelines would be similar, yes - can you give some examples of plays you're finding that are not notable? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Van Zorn, which I AFD'd after a PROD was declined; A Hand Is on the Gate - PROD; A Capital Federal - PROD; A Black Mass - PROD; And Carl Laughed -PROD for examples. Calabi-Yau (play), I assessed as start, but no real evidence of notability. Yesterday, I found A Midsummer Night's Dream as un-assessed! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've dePRODed a few of those because they are notable, but I agree with your opinion of some of the others. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think this shows that we need to establish a guideline. Anyone care to comment on Cards on the Table, the article is primarily about an Agatha Christie novel, with two sentences about a stage adaptation. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need to be tagged by this project. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Or Carol's Eve? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Carol's Eve was at least produced by a professional theatre with notable people involved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Except for Calabi-Yau, I don't think any of the above assert sufficient notability. Did any of them have a substantial professional production? When? Where? The article's don't say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A Black Mass is notable because it's by Baraka and could easily be expanded to explain how it fits with his contributions to black aesthetics, etc. He's definitely a major black writer, so the work gets cred on his name alone per the notability guidelines. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What? If a notable person writes a play that no one ever sees or reads, it is notable? I don't think so. The play may be notable, but the article needs to state where it was produced, or that it has received substantial critical attention. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Black Mass has, so it's not the ideal test case. But WP:NBOOK #5 says that the works of notable people are notable - that's a simplistic way of putting it, of course, but Baraka's oeuvre is certainly a subject of study. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, #5 does not say that. It says that if "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes", then all his/her works can be considered notable. This is not Baraka, it's Shakespeare and Mark Twain; maybe even Emily Dickinson and Rodgers and Hammerstein. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, Baraka is considered a major author and his works ARE studied in literature classes. He's up there with Toni Morrison, Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston and Ralph Ellison. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't make a lot of judgments about notability, so if you all could look through Category:Plays by Chambers Stevens and see which of those seem notable. The articles read like self-promotion, and most of the plays have had very small productions. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that none of them are notable enough to pass an AfD and two of them are the same work with different titles (Shaw and Twain Do Lunch & Twain and Shaw Do Lunch). Their author, Chambers Stevens, is an actor and child actor coach. Another of his works was deleted at this AfD. Several of the "plays" are monologues that he used to perform in pretty non-notable theatres and theatre clubs or ones intended for child actors to use for auditions or coaching. The articles are part of a rather extended campaign by several accounts ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) who are highly likely to be the same person, and clearly affiliated in some way to Stevens. "They" also created multiple articles on subjects related to him, e.g. The Steve Spots, Arly Hanks, Nashville Shakespeare Festival The Parent Zone, Girl's Club, and ProScout. A mirror of the multiply deleted WP article on Chambers Stevens is here. Voceditenore (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone nominated the category for deletion, which doesn't solve the problem, since the notability issue is with the plays themselves. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did the nom, which I shall withdraw following comments at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 13#Category:Plays by Chambers Stevens, but may renominate if the category empties. I have prodded several articles, but a couple of the plays may be notable. Of course, I still think that we should establish a guideline. Most of the un-assessed articles which I am currently assessing are about plays of dubious notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we create a new section to discuss guidelines for notability and then add an RfC tag to get suggestions from a wider range of editors? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A thought about the PRODs: I suggest that if we can confirm through Google Books that the play is what it claims to be, and if the author has an article, that we move any relevant content to the author's page and redirect the article instead of deleting it outright. Sometimes it's useful to have a good paragraph in the author's page rather than deleting a too-short article. Plus we can add categories to the redirect page as relevant. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines needed for plays/drama

There's been some debate over notability lately, especially after several hundred previously untagged play articles were added to the Project. The questions right now seem to be the following:

1. What are the limits of notability for plays whose authors do not have their own articles? Obviously, a Broadway play or Tony/Obie/Drama Desk Award-winning play is notable by itself, but how do we decide about other New York productions? And what about regional theatre: Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta, etc.?
2. If the author is a major author, when do her/his plays inherit notability for their own articles and when should they simply be redirected into the author's article? For instance, plays that were never produced, or never made it to New York, etc.

Thoughts? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: Well, my first thoughts are that there are theatres outside of the United States, in fact many (if not most) of the 200 or so countries in the world have significant theatres and theatre awards. I think that we should probably follow the guideline of WP:Notability (books), amended to read something like those found in the draft that I have posted at WP:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays). I think it would best if we commented at WT:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays), as there is a lot of content, mostly adapted from WP:Notability (books). Jezhotwells (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• It has to do with the importance of the play. Did it have a long and successful run? Did it star Lawrence Olivier and lots of other A-list actors? Was it directed by a famous director? Did it tour extensively, and was it revived numerous times internationally to major venues? Any of these factors would add to the possibility of its being notable. Or, did it receive extensive critical comment? Do books about drama discuss it as an important development in drama? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

those are criteria for famous, not notable. Any one of these would not just contribute towards notability, but would go far beyond the minimum to prove it. There is nothing at all where we require international coverage for notability --neither songs, nor painting, nor books, nor politicians nor athletes nor computer games; there is nothing at all where we require extensive critical comment, just substantial critical comment--interpreted as being more than a listing. There is nothing for which we require a "long successful" anything, just something significant enough to be s noted by RSs. . The criteria for books is any two or more substantial reviews in discriminating reliable sources, and the criteria for plays should not be higher. This would in essence include all plays written by a notable author, with a notable director, with notable leading performers, and all plays produced in a major theatrical center. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggested process: I suggest that you keep working on the draft, and when the folks here are happy with it, that you tag it as a {{WikiProject notability essay}}. A good notability essay from the people who know the subject well is a very valuable thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Existing guidelines are fine. Can't we just apply the GNG? I would oppose instruction creep which declares new, detailed, subject-specific thresholds for the notability of plays, playwrights, cast, and anything else on stage... I would also firmly oppose the use of inherited notability; if a play is notable in its own right then there should be sufficient sources discussing that play to write at least a stub. If a play is not notable, redirect to the writer (or some other suitable target). bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that instruction creep is a bad thing. However, if there are certain questions that arise repeatedly, and seem to cause consternation and endless debate, there is nothing wrong with the community writing down the generally accepted conclusions. In other words, if there are 800 articles on plays, and 50 are borderline notable, why have 50 separate discussions? Why not centralize the notability decision-making guidelines in one place? namely a "Guideline for notability (plays)"? Otherwise, the debate happens over and over, with different editors participating, and the results (keep or delete) are haphazard and inconsistant. --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Finish draft guideline, then post here - The draft notability guideline located at WT:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays) looks like an excellent start. I suggest that interested editors continue refining that, and when it gets to a good condition, propose it for official adoption on this Talk page and other places (such as Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or the village pump) and announce it. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not familiar with project scope and guideline, but I suggest to start one based on a mix of music, films and events guidelines, pretty much like the way they are related. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the draft at WT:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays)? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Scott Rudin

I have created {{Scott Rudin}}. I have never seen a movie producer who also does plays or at least, I don't recall seeing templates indicating such. However, his theatre work has been so successful, I wanted to make sure it is not a problem to have included it. So that discussion from members of all four projects that I am notifying is all in one place on this topic, comment at Template talk:Scott Rudin if you have any commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup lisyings for project

I replaced the now redundant Wolterbot listing with the new service from User:Svick. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Though similar to writing about films, I am not proficient in wrting article on theater directors and stage actors. So I am here requesting assistance in expanding and sourcing the article Jeffrey Sanzel. As well as being a playwrite and stage actor, he has been the director of Theater Three since 1993. His most known work is his original play From the Fires: Voices of the Holocaust (there's an article just waiting to be written) which has received media attention from 1996 through 2008.[10] Sanzel and/or his yearly modified stage production of A Christmas Carol continue to be written of in sources such as The New York Times, among others.[11] What I seek is help in improving the article. Any takers? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Theatre education

I was surprised to see that there is no article at Theatre education. Is this a case of a missing redirect to a title I did not think of, or is there really not an existing article on this subject? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There's only Theatre studies and Category:Theatrologists. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by Theatre education. Do you mean the use of theatre for educational purposes, Theatre in Education (TIE), or the study of theatre? Your suggested name is ambiguous. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we mean the study of theatre (i.e. how theatre skills are taught/learned in the classroom). If so, can omeone suggest an appropriate title? Jwyllie (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have referred this issue to a Mr. Michael Golding of Las Angeles. He holds an MFA in Theatre Education from the prestigious NYU drama school. he would be a fine candidate to start this article as he is also a professional writer and a member of the writers' guild. Jwyllie (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant an article about how theatre is taught. BTW, I think "Theatre education" is still a good title; the scope of the article can be clarified in the lede as needed. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Problematic article

Can anyone do anything about this article full of unreferenced trivia and non-notable names: The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America? Any help would be much appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs work. It was created by a COI account that has now been blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have referenced, cleaned up and established notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For my future knowledge, what's a "COI" account and what would lead to it being blocked? I'm a new contributor and am trying to learn how things are done and why? Jwyllie (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Basically, it means writing an article about yourself or your business or your relatives or something else that causes you to have a vested interest in the way the article reads. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I see it now, thanks, it's an acronym for "conflict of interest". Jwyllie (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I have cleared the backlog. There are of course many further articles that do not have the project banner. I was interested to find many notable playwrights that did not have the banner, also many theatres. There were a number of articles about musicals, films, tv and radio plays that I re-categorized. I also noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, which does not have an assessment system, appears to be moribund. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Improvisational Theatre - Help needed

The article entitled "Improvisational_Theatre" should be moved to be a top priority article under the WikiProject Theatre. This is because there is a separate page for "Improvisational_Comedy", but the topic of improvisational theatre extends far beyond comedy and should be a top level theatre page because of the prevalence of improvisational theatre as a classroom technique, rehearsal technique, audition technique, and as a performance genre in it's own right. The "Improvisational_Theatre" page needs considerable work. Does anyone know how to make it a top article page for the Theatre WikiProject? I tried to do it, but must be doing something wrong. Jwyllie (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria for a "Top" class article: "This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information."

But it does fit "High" class: "This article is important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. Use also for extremely well known and commonly-researched plays or people." Priorities measure the importance of an article to a project, not what work is needed. Improvisational comedy is a redirect to Improvisational theatre. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree with you. Again, I have asked Mr. Michael Golding (see my reference to him two paragraphs above) to consider an overall revision of this article. Is there someone who "okays" an overall revision and who could assist him from an editorial viewpoint? Jwyllie (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, no-one needs permission,, but you do need to study our core policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia day at NYPLPA

As part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries program, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts will be having a Wikipedia editathon on Saturday, Oct. 22, as part of New York City's Meetup group. Though the day is billed as Wikipedia:The Musical (i.e. with focus on musical theatre), that in no way excludes topics that would be well-covered by that library, including theatre, opera, dance, etc. Here's NYPL's blurb: Wikipedia: The Musical!

You can sign up at Meetup/NYC's page, which has been renamed Wikipedia:The Musical for the event. -- kosboot (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Edwards (entomologist)

Henry Edwards is on the Main Page today. I just added the Theatre Project tag to the article's talk page. It appears that the article had escaped this project's notice until now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of "theater" in the article Theatre

A WP:RFC has been started at Talk:Theatre#Inclusion of alternate spelling. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites of theatres to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request an Assessment

Mike Nichols- partially expanded and rewritten.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Derek Goldby

• - Derek Goldby

Weakly cited - Australian theatre director - weakly sourced - considering WP:AFD - anyone interested and knowlwdgable able ot improve or dig up some stronger citations would be great. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to Infobox play

I have been advised to alert this project of a proposed change to {{Infobox play}}. Please comment on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Kennedy Center Honorees}}

Since WP:PRIZE is inactive, I am asking here whether the new {{Kennedy Center Honorees}} should be implemented in place of the separate yearly templates. I.E., should {{Kennedy Center Honorees|2007}} replace {{2007 Kennedy Center Honorees}}. I noticed that the template was implemented for 2009-2011 honorees and converted 2008 honoree pages. Then, I thought maybe the old system was better. I am willing to swap in the rest if the new template is preferred, but I am not sure it is. Also, I have a lot of experience at creating networks of templates like

and wonder if we should have a network of templates with one per decade.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

We have ten articles redirecting to a non-existing article about the Aleksander Zelwerowicz State Theatre Academy in Warsaw. Perhaps somebody write a stub at least? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a stub has been created. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Childs

I've been approached by a fan of producer, director, and blogger Timothy Childs who thinks he should have an article (especially since she herself does :-) ). However, I haven't been able to find what I'd consider to be sufficient WP:RS to start the article. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-26/entertainment/ca-705_1_timothy-childs would seem to be suitable, but I'd need something else at that level to feel good about going forward. Can anyone suggest some other sources to use? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reinforcement may be found at [12], and there are a number of news stories at [13] which look like they will add so more substance. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Muppets - portal for deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muppets. — Cirt (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for The Relapse

I have nominated The Relapse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

I have nominated this article for the WP:MAINPAGE for 24 December, the 3rd anniversary of his death. Comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests would be appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway

Stanley Holloway has been [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Holloway/archive1 Nominated at FAC]. If anyone can review the article and comment [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Holloway/archive1 here], it would be much appreciated. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Easy Virtue (play)

Can anyone improve this article? In addition, there is an editor who has suggested floating the TOC to the right. You can see the discussion on the talk page; feel free to join in. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

In case regulars here didn't see the article alerts note, this is just a reminder that Harold Pinter will be Today's Featured Article on Saturday, 24 December, the 3rd anniversary of his death. Would appreciate any help in keeping an eye open for vandalism. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

{{theater-struct-stub}} / {{theatre-struct-stub}}

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Theatre will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in theatre - as performers, writers, characters, directors, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Logo

Should we use the original logo or revival logo for plays and musicals. I think we should use the origial as it was the reason the show became known? Entertainer91 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

• Portal:Arts

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Longest running off-broadway shows

Is there a list for List of the longest-running Off-Broadway shows that is analogous to List of the longest-running Broadway shows? Love, Loss, and What I Wore is scheduled to close with 1013 shows, which I think is a historically high number for Off-Broadway. According to this website it is one of the top 50 Off-Broadway runs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Rating for Princess Theatre, Edmonton Page

Hello,

I just published an article I've been working on for a week or so, Princess Theatre, Edmonton. I believe it's in the scope of your project. Would anyone be able to go over there and rate it for me?

--Rawlangs (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like something for the cinema project - not a playhouse. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Beijing operas‎

Category:Beijing operas‎, Category:Films featuring Beijing opera and Category:Peking Opera singers, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Dan Leno, the well-known Victorian actor, comedian and star of British music hall and musical comedy of the 1890s, has recently been expanded and is headed for WP:FA consideration. As a result, I am seeking comments in this Peer Review and I would be most greatful for any comments recieved. Thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC

We got the article up to FA!  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Derby Theatre

I just stumbled across this article today. It's got a lot of problems which I outlined on Talk:Derby Theatre. Not my area, so I thought I'd bring this to the project's attention. Note also these edits [14], [15]. I've urged this (new) editor to bring their concerns either here or to Talk:Derby Theatre. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Theater" or "Theatre"-- which should this project be called?

The British (older) spelling is "theatre"; the American is "theater." The meaning, of course, is the same. Philebritite (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I use theatER to refer to the buildings where performance take place whereas I use theatRE to talk about things relating to productions and performances. Ecragg (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The decision that we came to at WP:MUSICALS was that while theatre is acceptable everywhere, it is just wrong in some countries, so we just use theatre in all cases, unless in a direct quote or a proper name. However, surprisingly, you will find that nearly all theatres in the U.S. are called the _______ Theatre, so even theatre buildings use the RE spelling. Also, theatre professionals (at least in New York) prefer the RE spelling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tom Eyen images

Hello everyone. I notice that someone has deleted some images from the Tom Eyen article and added others. Does anyone thing that either of the former, deleted, images should be saved, or that any of the new images are unnecessary or inappropriate? Thanks for any advice. Here is the diff: [16] -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

You are invited to discuss at Talk:The_Decision a move request for a page under this project's scope.—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Theatres by capacity

Hi, folks! I'm surprised that we have lists for covered stadiums and indoor arenas by capacity, but none for theaters. Actually, the only international list I've found is List of national theatres, and I had to add it to the main article because there wasn't any in "See also". Can anyone start List of theatres by capacity? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Greatest roles of all time lists

I am trying to find out if there are greatest role lists or greatest fictional character role lists. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Greatest roles of all time lists with any advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

West End theatre database

Is there a West End theatre analogue to IBDb.com?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If there is nothing general, is there a list of all West End productions of Death of a Salesman. I am working on Willy Loman and I currently have all Broadway productions and all film productions (many of which are associated with stage productions). In fact, here is a list of facts I am looking for:

1. All West End productions
   1. theatre
   2. Loman family actors (Willy and, if possible, Linda, Biff and Happy)
   3. director
   4. Opening date
   5. Run length
   6. Major Olivier Award recognition
2. All BAFTA film Award recognition for Death of a Salesman
3. All BAFTA television Award recognition for Death of a Salesman
4. Any association between the David Thacker-directed stage version that opened at Royal National Theater in 1996 and the 1996 David Thacker/Warren Mitchell film version. E.g., something like "the opening or closing performance was taped."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any, but there are lots of books about British theatre that list productions and actors. Olivier awards and film awards should be online at their respective websites. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BAFTA has its own website, and while I don't think there is an IBDb style site for the West End, you may be able to find what you are looking for at The Stage. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Film adaptations in writers templates

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Literature#Adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes: The Musical Article

As part of an educational class assignment, I have been working with 2 other students over the past couple of weeks trying to develop an article page for Sherlock Holmes: The Musical. It is currently classified as a stub on Wikipedia, so we would like to try and expand it. We thought it might be important to notify the Wikipedia theatre community of our plans, and we are definitely open to any comments, feedback, or suggestions on our talk page. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quainiac/draft_Sherlock_Holmes_the_musical JPierre679 (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Review?

Hi, I recently put an article of mine (Eugenie Fougère) up for good article review. I'd like to ask that someone under the jurisdiction of this (or related) WikiProject review it for me; I figure you guys know your stuff a little more than some and I'd just like to try and make sure the reviewer knows as much as possible about the topic. You know, a why not ask? type of situation here.

Thanks! ---Saw1998 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on actor Robert Boulter

• Robert Boulter

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Theatre Royal Stratford East

Interested eyes would be welcome on this article, which could well do with updating, but the theatre themselves are trying to do it by copying their website in - see WP:COI/N#Theatre Royal Stratford East and User talk:Stratfordeast#Copyright and promotion. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a go on this: it's a beautiful little theatre with an interesting history which I know well, both as a punter but also as a result of having worked in the theatre industry for a long time (I left it before it left me). I never worked for the organisation, & will try to independantly source any additions I make, but having taken a short look at the edit history I don't think the suspected coi edits are actually trying to put in anything particuly POV. On a short look, it's a history of the theatre which fails to mention Oh What a Lovely War, which is a big omission.TheLongTone (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox theatre

I did my first edit on a theatre article today, and was totally baffled by this infobox. It seem to have several parameters that are not needed, like co-ords, but more importantly it lacks such absolute basics such as proscenium width & type, stage rake, type of flying, usable stage depth...all the things that actually determine what a theatre is like. If you've entered through the stage door rather than through the front of house. I also don't understand what 'theatre type' means: and as a UK resident terms like Broadway, off-broadway, off-off-off Broadway do not help. the article I looked at was the Coliseum in London: I'd say this was a music hall. It's certainly not an opera house: the relationship between stage and auditorium is completely wrong. But I don't know what 'Music Hall' means in American. American theatres, theatre practice, & terminolgy arvery different, so this is a real can of worms.... But I think these technical details are important. I do most of my editing on WP:aviation articles, where airaft articles genrally have a template-driven specs section for this kind of fact in addition to the infobox, which therefore does not need eg wingspan in the data. I don't think this would work for theatres....there are too many diffrent ways of arranging stage area, audience, &c, but do think the basics would be useful infobox parameters. I don't like to many numbers in artice bodies (difficult with aircraft) but there are'leading figures' for both theatres and aircrft and a way of getting them into articles in a predictable place in the articles seems desirable.TheLongTone (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:American actresses

Category:American actresses, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for rename. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Multimedia templates

I have created about 200 multimedia templates (see multimedia works towards the bottom of the templates section at User:TonyTheTiger/creations) in the last 2 months. Many have dozens of links such as {{Cinderella}} and {{The Three Musketeers}}, while others have just a few such as {{The Old Man and the Sea}} and {{Gigi}}. I have been trying to make them look as uniform as possible so that if you go to the bottom of a page like Oscar Wilde they all look the same. On that page all of the multimedia templates were created by me. However, on pages like Charles Dickens or H. G. Wells many of the other templates were created by others. I have even tried to make the titles of the templates on these pages look like the ones I have created. After two months of work creating these templates, Robsinden (talk · contribs) has started undoing a lot of my efforts, but in a fairly consistent way. We have reached an impasse on two or three issues:

1. Should we include dates in template titles? See Oscar Wilde vs. Charles Dickens.
2. Should include foreign languages in multimedia templates. E.g. Rob removed many foreign languages. I think the old version was better, but Rob thinks only disambiguation justifies parenthetical text.
3. In the case of ballets or operas such as {{Swan Lake navbox}} and {{Cinderella}} should we include the composer.

Since I am pinging many projects, please hold all the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates#Additional_disambiguation_info_in_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:21st-century actors

There is currently a proposal to split Category:21st-century actors. Imput on this matter would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

American pantomime

If anyone is interested in, or familiar with the supposed "American" version of British pantomime, would you please comment here?: Talk:American Panto. After reading the article and looking around online, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such genre. One might be able to write an article about pantomime in America, I suppose, but I am not sure it is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Current production in infobox

I have just removed the 'production' field from the infobox in Trafalgar Studios, for the second time in a month. The production I removed from it today opens tonight, and runs for five nights, according to the theatre's website.

I contend that putting information into the article that changes this rapidly is far less helpful than leaving it out completely. The documentation on the 'production' field of Template:infobox theatre agrees with me: "The name of the current production. If the venue changes productions frequently, this heading can be omitted. It should only be used if the production either has been there awhile or is likely to be there awhile. It shouldn't have to be changed monthly. Italics are included in the code of the template, and, in all liklihood, this should be wikilinked."

I have little doubt that there are plenty of other articles about theatres that similarly list current productions inappropriately: I wanted to bring the matter to the notice of this project. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Theatre!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

• Women's roles as performers, directors, writers and instructors in the theatre.
• The importance of women's roles in theatre
• Music, works and styles of theatre that have specifically impacted women and women's history

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and stop by my talk page with any questions! SarahStierch (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

First actress in Norway

Hello! I am interested in theater history and are currently focusing on the first professional actress in Norway, whom I have identified as Christiane Hansen. The first permanent professional public theater in Norway was as I understand the theatre of Johan Peter Strömberg in Oslo in 1827. In this article: [17], Christiane Hansen (later married Lang Bocher) is briefly mentioned as the first actress of note on that theatre. But that is all. I have found nothing more. Does any one here now anything more? At least the year of birth and death? Is she perhaps more easy to find under a different name? I do think she should have an article here, and given information, I would gladly start it myself. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Literature portal

Literature has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Gray (actor)

Kevin Gray just died at age 55. He created leading roles in two Broadway shows and was a replacement for leading roles in Phantom (both Raoul and the Phantom) and The Lion King (Scar). His extensive credits include national tours, lots of regional theatre and some voice, TV and film work. He was also a professor of theatre. I don't have time to write him up, but if anyone else does, this will get you started. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pygmalion issues help wanted

I have been attempting to refine improper linking to Pygmalion (play) and Pygmalion (mythology), and I could use some assistance cleaning up {{Pygmalion}}, {{Pygmalion navbox}}, and {{My Fair Lady}} (the latter two which I have recently created). I have posted some particular issues at Talk:Pygmalion (play)#Template:Pygmalion. Please feel free to jump in and edit the templates or leave comments there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Theatre/Theater spelling again

The article about the Theatre District, New York was recently renamed Theater District, New York, and the move discussion failed to make the point that it has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". As you can see from the discussion at Theatre District, New York, one editor has been battling for a long time to name this page against that consensus, but he did not alert the Theatre or Musical theatre WikiProjects of the discussion, and those of us who write intensively about theatre, including New York theatre, should have been notified. Would editors here kindly weigh in (either way, of course), over at Theater District, New York? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

The article about the play She Has a Name is a current featured article candidate. If you would be willing to review the article, your comments at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Haid1 für Wiki.jpg

file:Haid1 für Wiki.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That isn't really a nomination. Its needs a source or it may be deleted. Can someone look into sourcing the image to resue it please.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dikt8e für Wiki.jpg

File:Dikt8e für Wiki.jpg has been tagged for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest removing the statement that Buried Child was the first Off-Broadway play to win a Pulitzer Prize (1979), since Charles Gordone's No Place to be Somebody (produced by Joe Papp at the Public) was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1970. (The Wikipedia article on Gordone's play also lists it as the first play produced Off-Broadway to receive a Pulitzer Prize.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.7.77 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Faust navbox

I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{Faust navbox}}. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at Template talk:Faust navbox#Requested move and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#The_most_complicated_template_yet_.28Faust.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

2012 tour of She Has a Name is currently up for a Good Article Nomination and the reviewer has requested an independent copyedit. If anyone who has not had previous involvement with the article would be willing to perform such a copyedit, it would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

3 important play stubs

I have stubbed out the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Drama winner Disgraced and the two favorites for 2013 Tony Award for Best Play Lucky Guy (play) and Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Note that Monday (the 29th) and Tuesday (the 30th) the Drama Desk Awards and Tony Awards nominations come out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Another important stub

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time swept the Olivier Awards yesterday. Feel free to help me develop that one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I also stubbed out Goodnight Mister Tom--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony Award hooks at DYK

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal for a day of 67th Tony Awards nominee DYK hooks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Award enumeration

This year is the first year that I have had extensive involvement in the creation of articles for stage productions. Last year I created Water by the Spoonful which had little need for an enumeration of awards. This year I have created Kinky Boots (musical), Disgraced, Lucky Guy (play), Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (play), Goodnight Mister Tom (play), Of Mice and Men (play), and The Trip to Bountiful (play). In addition, I have been involved in the development of The Assembled Parties, The Testament of Mary (play), The Piano Lesson and A Christmas Story: The Musical. Today at The Testament of Mary, Ssilvers (talk · contribs) cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure#Response, which is WP:MUSICAL poicy that states This section should contain a list of major awards. For musicals performed in the U.S., these awards are limited to the Tony Award, Drama Desk Award, Obie Award, and Pulitzer Prize for Drama. For musicals performed in the U.K., these awards are limited to the Laurence Olivier Award, Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award. .... If this list becomes too long, it may be shortened to the most notable awards. I am not sure if WP:THEATRE agrees with WP:MUSICAL on this issue. This all seems so different from what I see at WP:FILM where awards lists include every critic circle that can get their lists in a newspaper. At The Testament of Mary, Drama League Award and Outer Critics Circle Award were awards subject to inclusion battles. At some of the other articles Lucille Lortel Awards, New York Drama Critics' Circle Award, Theatre World Award, Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards and Fred & Adele Astaire Awards would be at issue. Do we want to eliminate all of theses "second tier" awards from all of these articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

hmm...well awesome job creating and helping with these theatre pages! we need more editors to help keep the theatre pages up to date every year. I have created several pages for Tony nominees and other theatre award winners etc. As far as the awards - I guess it makes sense to only list the "Triple Crown" awards (Tony,Drama Desk,Outer Critics) and then Obie and Lucille Lortel for Off-Broadway. any other awards don't need to be listed but can be mentioned elsewhere in the article perhaps (it's not like there are tons of awards for theatre like their are for film for example). HesioneHushabye (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not include Outer Critics or Lucille Lortel, as they are far less prestigious than the Tonys/Obies. You can see, for example, that shows never advertise that they got x number of Outer Critics Circle Award nominations. Theatre World Award is a different case - it belongs in the actor's bio, but not in the show's article. By keeping the awards listed to the most prestigious ones, we make the articles more encyclopedic and less fan-crufty. If you look at all of the FA articles on musicals, they unanimously (almost unanimously?) list only the awards discussed here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that only prestigious awards need to be mentioned otherwise we end up with sections full of lists of awards that no one has heard of.Jack1956 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to know which Awards you mean by prestigious and which by those no one has heard of. Please clearly state which Awards you support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to ignore the Outer Critics and Lortel awards--people have heard of those. That list of four awards seems too small to me. I'd rather expand the list of significant theater awards to, say 10. Plus, what awards do we mention for regionally-developed shows that didn't make it to NYC? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what list to suggest for regional awards. I just went by what had articles at Disgraced, which has yet to make Broadway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. When WP:MUSICALS discussed this topic, MarianWilde (talk · contribs) mentioned Helpmann Awards, Dora Mavor Moore Award, Molière Award, Nestroy Awards and Faust Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did see several advertisements in last Sunday's New York Times for productions with Outer Critics nominations; if I haven't recycled it yet I can try to find some examples. I also agree that many of the awards suggested for American productions are inappropriately New York-centric; what about the Jeff Awards, for example? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I list the Jeffs at Disgraced and mention them at Kinky Boots (musical).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to list the Jefferson Award for Disgraced, since it has not had a major-market production, but now that Kinky Boots is on Broadway, the Jefferson Awards are superseded by the pending Tonys and Drama Desks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

the prestigious awards are such as: the Tony Award, Drama Desk Award, Obie Award, and Pulitzer Prize for Drama. For musicals performed in the U.K., these awards are limited to the Laurence Olivier Award, Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award. Jack1956 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

as per Jack, we should not be bloating this article with listing little known awards. The Outer Critics or Lucille Lortel awards for example are far less prestigious than the Tonys and the Obies. --Cassianto^Talk 07:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just pondered hard about a UK aspect on this, and I conclude that Jack1956 has it spot-on. We don't want the Mrs Joyful Prize for Rafia-work to squeeze in with the big league awards, viz the Oliviers, the Evening Standard Awards and the Critics' Circle Awards. I don't know enough about the American awards to comment on them, beyond saying from a European perspective that the Tony Awards, Drama Desk Awards, and Pulitzer Prizes are familiar, but (excuse ignorance) the Obie Awards are not. But what do I know? – Tim riley (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a hard and fast rule. It will depend on the category of the production, where it was performed etc - e.g. something that had a significant run in the West End in London we're mainly concerned about Oliviers, Evening Standard Awards, etc. But for something more experimental or fringe theatre, or work of regional interest, it is legitimate to refer to other awards. For plays that premiered at a major festival and won a significant award there (e.g. the Scotsman Fringe First prize at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe) it is valid to mention that. The goal is to not list a thousand trivial awards, but still to give a good sense of the critical reception, and not all British theatre is about London. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cola. If a show was nominated for Tonys and Drama Desk awards, then you don't need to discuss the lesser awards. On the other hand, if the *only* award that it won was an Outer Critics' Circle award, then we can mention that. As you can see by looking at FA examples of musicals, such as The King and I and Carousel (musical), the most prestigious awards are mentioned only briefly, often in the "Productions" section as part of the description of each relevant production, and any more lengthy treatment can be moved to a sub-article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So, go with the most prestigious awards given for that show? That makes sense. And that would help solve the problems of what to list for off-Broadway, off-off-Broadway, and regional theater productions. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest for shows that win major awards on Broadway or West end and then have successful productions in other markets winning things like Helpmann Awards, Dora Mavor Moore Award, Molière Award? What about shows that preview in Chicago winning Jeff Awards that go on to win Tonys and such?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Another way to understand this is to read some major theatre books and see how much space they devote to awards. I'm sitting here with "Broadway Musicals: The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time" by Ken Bloom and Frank Vlastnik. They hardly mention awards at all, and when they do, they mention Tonys and Oliviers. The same for Geoffrey Block's "Enchanted Evenings: The Broadway Musical from Show Boat to Sondheim". Ditto Ganzl's "The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre". So, the question is, in a high-quality article about a play or musical, how much space should be devoted to the discussion of awards, and why should we discuss any but the most prestigious awards that the show was eligible for? Note that theatre awards are promotional awards designed to promote theatre attendance and actors' careers. They are awards by the theatre community for the theatre community. If a Broadway show wins some Tonys and happens also to win a Jefferson Award in a Chicago production, what does that add? On the other hand, if a Broadway show is NOT nominated for any Tonys but wins an Outer Critics Circle award, the main point that should be gleaned is that it did NOT get nominated for any Tonys despite that fact that most of the new shows that season got nominated for at least some Tony. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It is not true that most new shows get nominated for at least some Tonys. Only about half of those that have significant enough runs to be eligible get nominated for anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not that I don't understand that the Tonys and Oliviers are more important. The point is that WP:N is generally defined by when a subject can achieve WP:GNG from non-WP:SPS. Thus, subjects covered in The New York Times, Playbill, etc. are considered notable and it is not our place as a tertiary source to determine which of those subjects should be included in our encyclopedia. When WP:FILM includes all kinds of Critic Circles in their awards lists, it is not because they don't understand that the Kansas City Critics Circle is less important than the Oscars. It is because they understand that WP is a tertiary resource. We do not debate notability by pointing to WP:RS that exclude a subject. Notability is based on whether RS include a subject. The awards at issue are basically all awards that The New York Times, Playbill and other cover. Why do you suddenly feel that any set of individuals should supercede WP:GNG? No matter how many books you have that exclude 2nd tier awards, they are covered by The New York Times, Playbill and others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. It is our task, as editors, to determine the correct balance of an article. If you read every article and book and other WP:RS that exists about Oklahoma! or Hamlet, you could find hundreds of thousands, or millions, of pages of information. It is our job to extract the most important information that fits in an encyclopedia article. I am arguing that the awards section should be proportional and in the proper balance in the article. Not all information ever published in The New York Times belongs in this encyclopedia. It's not that I don't think awards are not suitable for inclusion at all, it's that I think they shouldn't be given undue prominence when other information about the show is more important. For example, I certainly think that it is important to say that a show got the Oliver Award for Best Play. But I don't think it's important to note that the 237th revival of it in Sri Lanka got the local theatre award, even if this was reported in the NYT. See, e.g., WP:WEIGHT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you trying to change the subject. No one here is making a case for the 237th revival of a show. Most of the argument here is about Awards for NYC productions and Larger 2nd tier markets with awards notable enough to have their own market. Certainly you understand that there is a difference between the Jeff Awards and say being best play in Buffalo or Boise. Similarly Helpmann Awards, Dora Mavor Moore Award, Molière Award are probably all different than winning best play in Sri Lanka.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is our duty as responsible and experienced editors to make a judgment about what is useful to the reader and what is clutter. Sometimes there is pressing specialist reason to include mention of more obscure awards. Colapeninsula makes this point very concisely above. Ordinarily it is sensible, and indeed kind, to stick to the awards that will mean anything to the non-specialist reader. Tim riley (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully endorse Tim's comment above; only awards generally known to readers should be included or we run the risk of overloading articles with needless clutter. Jack1956 (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

All this talk of judgement calls is making little sense in practice. Look at the issue that led to this whole debate. Defining a handful as 5, The Testament of Mary (play) is a production that does not have a handful of Tony and Drama Desk Award nominations combined and did not at the time of contentious editing have a handful of non-Tony and Drama Desk Awards "cluttering" the article. Why is this the case in point about cluttering articles with obscure Awards. Why is it O.K. to clutter Disgraced with the about same total number of nominations that is considered clutter at Testament of Mary. Are we now in agreement that when one play has 8 nominations it is cluttered and when another in the same year has 7 nominations it is not? You are now saying we are in agreement that a judgement call system like this is the proper way to restore order to WP. About 3 or 4 years ago there was a big hullabaloo that led to the elimination of oodles of categories leaving only (to my recollection) Category:Broadway plays, Category:Off-Broadway plays and Category:West End plays (and a corresponding set of cats for musicals). At that time, we did not say lets leave all the categories and decide which plays need Category:Chicago plays, Category:Los Angeles plays, etc. Where the heck is the proper borderline? Why isn't the case in point an article that one might reasonably say is in fact cluttered with nominations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot comment on the previous contribution, which is incomprehensible to me and I imagine to other editors not au fait with the minutiae of Broadway and its satellites. This rather illustrates the point, I think: write for the general public and don't presuppose detailed knowledge on the part of our readers. Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit without assuming knowledge of the reader is about as meaningless a credo as you could possibly propound. P.S. I was not previously arguing against the category reductions, I was saying that this current debate is almost the opposite solution. Before, we said it was not possible for the editors to consistently make judgement calls on categories and now we are saying that is what we should do. It is senseless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I note your views. I don't think there's much support for them above, but de gustibus, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your fancy linguistics don't change the fact that the debate above is about 50/50. However, you continue to feign lack of understanding to questions, which makes it hard to pursue consensus. I am asking for an explanation about your support for "judgement calls" when we previously came to a broad agreement that it is impossible to consistently handle judgement calls. Let's look at another one that is somewhere on the border between Testament of Mary and Disgraced. The 2013 production of The Piano Lesson picked up 3 Drama Desk noms. Does that mean all other nominations are clutter for that production?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear me! Permit me to say that I don't think it all that civil to sneer at a chap's prose style. I have already given my comments on what I think you have been trying to say. I repeat, that as there is a world outside the US of A (and even outside the West End, of which you've assuredly heard from time to time) it is important to make our articles accessible to all, eschewing doctrinaire mention of prizes when such mention would be unlikely to add to the usefulness of the article to a visiting reader. Tim riley (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh judgement calls are now justified by use of high vocabulary. You have managed to send me to google search with every reply. If I understand your statement it is that if we used something other than judgement calls, it would be wrong because it is doctrinaire. Help me understand how Testament of Mary is more accessible when stripped to a few crumbs of nominations or how it was cluttered when it had a whopping total of 8 nominations before this debate started. Then explain how Disgraced is more accessible with its 7 current nominations plus possibly some pending nominations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, I note what you say, though I do not agree with it. No need to be aggressive, please. Let us all be colleaguely. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's be specific. The Piano Lesson had a Broadway production in 1990. It was nominated for a Tony, won a Pulitzer, and won the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Play. These are its major theatre awards. Its 2013 Off-Broadway production has received nominations for Drama Desk awards, Obie awards and many lesser awards. To include a big fat table containing all of these lesser awards is laughable, considering that there is just one efficient line reporting that the play won the Pulitzer Prize. This is a stark example of recentism and poor judgment in balancing the amount of coverage that various facts about the play receive. Instead of a huge table of awards (which is missing the Obies, by the way!), and huge long cast lists of non-notable actors (I would include only the Broadway cast and the list any other notable alums), why not add useful sections on the critical reception of each major production, a literary and critical analysis of the play and such other important sections as one would find in an FA quality article such as Hamlet, for example, which should guide anyone writing in this encyclopedia about plays. Why do I keep recommending that you use FA-class articles as guides? It is because the FA process provides for the expansion, extensive editing and careful vetting of content, using the highest quality sources, over an intensive period (often in several stages), in which some of the best editors at Wikipedia participate. Plus, the FA articles are often followed by a large number of editors who continue to improve them over time. Here are the highest-quality theatre articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_Theatre_articles . And here are the highest quality articles on musicals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_Musical_Theatre_articles . All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tim above .... let's keep this discussion amicable, after all we are all here voluntarily to help write an encyclopaedia. I also agree with what Ssilvers has written above. We do not need to list every single nomination - just those which are notable and recognised by both the industry and the general public as such. Jack1956 (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the thing. Everyone is saying let's keep the list to things notable according to the industry. What makes no sense is to say that and then say that awards like the Lucille Lortel Awards which are detailed in the New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Broadway.com, and TheaterMania.com, and Playbill, for starters, are non-notable. What kind of WP:OR is going on here? Why is everyone saying this is not notable?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained it over and over. See the definition of editing: "Editing is the process of selecting and preparing" [content]. We *select* the most important content for our articles out of the best sources. The mere fact that the Lucille Lortel Awards, or the NY Drama League awards exist and are well-known among the relevant producers, critics and actors makes it worth while having an article about these awards, but it does not mean that such awards (and especially their mere nominations) are worth noting on the play and musicals articles where they are superseded by more important awards. Lortel is superseded by Obies, and Drama League is superseded by Drama Desk. As I noted before, one really ought to point out that if something won a Lortel and not an Obie, the more important fact is that it did *not* win an Obie. Do you really have a serious issue to discuss, or are you just having fun going around and around with this discussion? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Caveat I am a bit biased about notability on The Piano Lesson's Lucille Lortel Awards because Ruben Santiago-Hudson (b 1956) who won best director went to Lackawanna High School, where my mother taught from 1974 to 1980.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you're biased about the local Jefferson Awards because you're from Chicago, and I have seen in the past that you have an emotional response to articles that deal with local matters. In fact, instead of making everyone discuss everything ad nauseum, why don't you read the FA articles for both plays and musicals and educate yourself about how these things have been handled in the past, and try to address things with some level of objectivity. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I do think this is a serious issue. This superseded stuff is not really logical to me. If I guy is Mayor and becomes governor, we don't remove his Mayoral content as superseded. Similarly, when someone becomes president, we don't wipe out his political career as superseded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What would be wrong with a solution sort of like what we see at WP:FILM where the prose only mentions Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe for the most part, but the tables include the whole list of "notable" awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Film project loves lists and tables. I disagree with them and, when we were putting together the Article Structure description at WP:MUSICALS, the clear consensus was not to encourage lists and lengthy tables. You'll see that, for our highest-quality articles, the long tables have generally been moved to subarticles. -- Ssilvers (talk)

Regardless of whether you move the list to separate page, I believe you are still considering things listed in the New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Broadway.com, TheaterMania.com, and Playbill as not notable enough for inclusion because they are less notable than the things on your list of prestigious awards. Thus, a separate page does not really change the argument. Is the fact that one thing is less notable than another notable thing a valid argument against notability?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't understand how notability works. The policy on notability says: "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." I agree that the Outer Circle Critics awards is a topic that *can have its own article* (and it does). That does not mean that all such awards must be mentioned in the articles for the corresponding shows. The notability policy also says: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. ... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Not every thing published in a RS goes in *every* article. My argument is against inclusion, not notability. If you talk about "notability" in the context of what content should be put in an article, then you have not read (or just not understood) the policy on notability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Trust me. I understand notability. I do not understand your theory on inclusion. When you argue based on WP:DUE and such, we need to consider WP:RS of course. Above people argue that anything but your list is "little known" stuff that no one cares about. The awards at issue run the gamut. We have Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards which are only covered by WP:SPS. It would be reasonable to suddenly say that these are not worthy of WP inclusion (prose or tables). However, when you look at Lucille Lortel Award (New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Broadway.com, TheaterMania.com, and Playbill) Outer Critics Circle Award (Playbill, Variety, UPI, and Broadwayworld.com) or Drama League Award (Deadline, UPI, Broadwayworld.com, Broadway.com, TheaterMania.com, and Playbill), these are different. These are all quite broadly covered in the press. You are relegating 2nd tier awards to 3rd tier status. Treating all the awards that are widely covered like they are equal in stature to the Broadway.com Awards seems to be without justification. Where in DUE does it support this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is taking up a prodigious amount of time. Does anyone else agree with TonyTheTiger, or can we close the matter and get on with editing Wikipedia? Tim riley (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I think this discussion has come to the end. I do not agree to listing third rate awards. Vote to close in favour of Ssilvers. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we all agree that the numbers below represent the opinions above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy similar to WP:MUSICALS (4): Cassianto, Tim riley, Ssilvers, Jack1956

Policy that includes broader awards lists (5): TonyTheTiger, HesioneHushabye, Aristophanes68, Orange Suede Sofa, Colapeninsula

Yes, and noted of course from earlier discussions. But having had this long say, does anyone else currently agree with TonyTheTiger, or can we close the matter and get on with editing Wikipedia? Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No! It seems that Aristophanes and Colapeninsula, on reflection, joined the policy similar to WP:MUSICALS group (as modified to point out that where a play has not been nominated for Tonys, Drama Desks or Obies, then one can list lesser awards). But I do agree with Tim that we have all had our say here, and we should stop repeating ourselves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Aristophanes said he wanted an expanded list and then later said go with the most prestigious for each show. I think this is support of eliminating something like Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards which are at an interest level that no non-WP:SPS sources can be found. He clearly stated include Lortel and Outer Critics Circle. There are esssentially three levels of prestige. MUSICALS supports use of the first. We have been adding a second level of awards that are widely supported by RS and a third level that is not widely supported by RS. I read Aristophanes' comments to be in support of broadening to the second level and mentioning additional third level only as needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Colapeninsula is a little harder to interpret. I don't really think a statement like "The goal is to not list a thousand trivial awards, but still to give a good sense of the critical reception, and not all British theatre is about London." is in support of your actions at Testament of Mary where you stripped a list that was not cluttered down to a few crumbs of nominations. I also doubt it means that when you can find 8 or 10 sources for an award without doing much work that "a good sense of critical reception" means omit that type of award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Resulting action that I intend to pursue

• Restore content removed from The Testament of Mary (play) under the presumption that WP:THEATRE concurs with WP:MUSICALS inclusion policy. No such consensus emerged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards from all 2013 articles. Anyone else is free to remove past years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• The following are all widely cited there is no consensus not to summarize WP:RS that abound for them in our articles: Lucille Lortel Award, Outer Critics Circle Award, Drama League Award, New York Drama Critics' Circle Award, Theatre World Award and Jeff Awards. I will take no action to remove, will add to articles that emerge and continue to summarize them as warranted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Fred & Adele Astaire Awards is not so widely cited. However, sources other than the award itself can be found. Not clear what to do. I will take no action.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I have made myself plain to at least one editor. When I asked if anyone now agreed with TonyTheTiger, I was trying to find out if anyone now agreed with TonyTheTiger. I recognise from previous exchanges, above, that TonyTheTiger has problems with understanding my prose, and I hope this is clear: do current editors of this and associated pages agree with TonyTheTiger's assertions, above, or is there a consensus to the contrary? Tim riley (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing we ignore the early responders. I am sure you are well aware that it is highly unusual to require people to continually reaffirm their comments at a discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the earlier contributors? Good gracious, no! But you have propounded at length lately; who knows how the earlier contributors have reacted to your recently-expressed assertions? What I am asking is whether, after your remarkably full contributions on the matter, other editors who are interested in this subject now agree with you. Tim riley (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

All I am saying is that we presume a person's opinion is the latest one they expressed until they change it. You are now assuming everyone is on your side unless they respond for some reason. Can you explain your assumption that everyone supports your view unless they respond again?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not about taking sides Tony, this is about trying to find a way forward. You assume the moral high ground in this discussion, I think it would be easier to live and let live and accept that not everybody agrees with you. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My point was that earlier contributors have not, unless they are keeping silent watch on this page, had the benefit of your many, many subsequent words on the matter, which may or may not have altered their opinion. They haven't altered mine, but in fairness to you I think everyone who is watching this page ought to be invited to express her or his view. Tim riley (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony has gone ahead and added back the lesser award nominations at The Testament of Mary (play), and I suppose that he will be (or has been) adding Outer Critics Circle and Drama League award nominations wherever else he feels like it. This is the defeat of reason and the triumph of cruft and WP:recentism. There are far more important items that should be discussed in the article, such as some discussion of the sources of the play, its inception and composition, literary and critical analysis of the script and production, dramatic structure and themes. It is very sad that a productive editor should waste so much time arguing in favor of cruft! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! RfC will be the obvious next step. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth it, Cassianto. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, but it would be a shame to let cruft and bloat win the day. --Cassianto^Talk 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan Cumming's one man show of Macbeth

This production of Macbeth is very notable (a google news search for 'Alan Cumming Macbeth' yields over 700 results), but the only mention of it on Wikipedia is two sentences on Cumming's page. Some may argue that to include it on the main Macbeth page will be a case of WP:UNDUE; if that's the case then I think that maybe this production should have its own article. I know that normally individual productions of shows do not have their own articles, but I believe an exception can be made here. After all, this interpretation of Macbeth is very unique. He completely re-imagined it. So to summarize my points made here, either Alan Cumming's one man show of Macbeth should either be included in the main Macbeth page, or given its own article. JDDJS (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the show did not get nominated for Drama Desk Award for Outstanding One-Person Show and IBDB.com does not consider it to be a separate show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that the production is any more notable than the many thousands of professional revivals of Macbeth that have occurred in the past several centuries. There have been black Macbeths, gay Macbeths, one-man Macbeths, pantomime Macbeths, all-female Macbeths, Macbeth the musical, Macbeths in a swimming pool, etc. IBDb lists 47 productions on Broadway alone. See WP:Recentism. Let's wait ten years and see if people are still talking about this one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on novelist categories

Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded: An invitation

Greetings, theatre editors. On behalf of the Vital Articles project, I would like to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in the ongoing discussions regarding films, filmmakers and actors at the Vital Articles/Expanded main talk page. There are currently 16 pending discussions regarding specific films to be added, removed or swapped from the existing VA/E sublist of films, as well as 21 active discussions regarding actors and actresses, and seven discussions regarding film directors and producers. There are other pending discussions that touch on music, theatre, opera and literature, and future discussions will no doubt touch on other artists and art forms as we work to refine the various VA/E sublists. As regular editors in WikiProject Theatre, we would welcome your knowledgeable participation in these discussions as we pare our list to those most "vital" of topics. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Cue sheet"

The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Input for Night of January 16th

I have been working recently on the article for Night of January 16th, a play from the 1930s, with the thought of nominating it for good article status. Since I don't have a lot of experience working on theater articles, I'm hoping some folks from this project might take a look and see if there are further improvements needed before moving forward. Thanks in advance for any input. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A quick glance at the article suggests that the introductory section should be expanded per WP:LEAD to give an overview of the most important points mentioned in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. Any thoughts on the body content are also appreciated, either here or at the article talk page. (Or folks can edit directly, of course.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For anyone watching, I've opened a peer review request for the article. No feedback yet after the first week. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Article suggestion - Memory play

I saw a performance of The Glass Menagerie earlier tonight, in which the description "memory play" is used. The term is also used in the wiki-article for this and other plays but is not defined and we have no article on the concept. Perhaps an editor in this WikiProject might like to start an article? Just a suggestion... EdChem (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working on a stub for this. Hope to have it up in a week or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, up in main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Theater - Skysmith (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kathleen Clark (playwright)

Dear theatre enthusiasts: The above article has been waiting in the Afc for more than two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

American actors of ethnicity

Right now, there are several categories for American actors of various ethnicities that are being proposed for deletion. This would impact actors and actresses in the fields of film, stage (including musical theatre), television and voice. If you have an opinion, for or against, please take a moment to weigh in:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 9#African-American child actors (this has been expanded to all African-American acting categories)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Category:American actors of Chinese descent
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Category:American actors of Japanese descent
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Jewish American actors
Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

You might be interested in this submission. And this one and this one. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Childe Byron

I noticed that this "Article for creation" draft was recently declined for promotion to English Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Childe Byron. It's an article on the Romulus Linney play about Ada Lovelace and Lord Byron. As best as I can tell, the play appears to pass the general notability requirements, but it needs a bit of polish. Anyone want to help? Kaldari (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move for Lorca

There's a move request to place Lorca at Lorca, Spain to avoid ambiguity of the title with Federico García Lorca. Diego (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vladimir Karamazov

Dear theatre experts: Here's a submission at Afc which has been waiting a long time for review. Can anyone help? We have 1400 others in the queue... —Anne Delong (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this Project's pretty much inactive, but here's another one just in case. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Magdalena Cernat

This article has been nominated for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Theatre image deletions at commons.

It is looking highly likely that images of theatres held at commons are going to be deleted as they hold a promotional element due to signage / banners for productions and as such may not be free. See [18].Blethering Scot 11:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be referred to WIkipedia's legal department as it may constitute fair use. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't think Wiki's legal team would get involved because if they are fair use they are deleted from Commons and would have to be uploaded here with a full rationale.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They certainly would count as fair use but the issue would actually be recovering the photos and where they came from. I would argue the point made is the promotional element is incidental, however either way we need theatre images and well have to work around it. For me its more the volume that we will be looking at that's the issue.Blethering Scot 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Save them now just in case! Some of the posters don't look incidental.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They are incidental in that someone doesn't take a photo of the theatre because of what poster is up they take it because they wish to take a photo of the theatre. The promotional element is unfortunate and well just have to deal with it, but we will all have to save the photos we wish to use because I'm not saving the thousands on commons. The issue is I have all mine but not other peoples. It was mentioned they could be transferred now but then you would have to use an alternate file name and I'm not too happy with that one.Blethering Scot 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Theatres Trust Template

Please note {{TheatresTrust}}, for use on pages about theatres in the United Kingdom, that have entries in the Theatres Trust database, e.g. Apollo Theatre. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC for proposal at Talk:Alter ego

An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Kauffman

Hello theatre enthusiasts! The above old abandoned draft was never submitted for review at Afc. Now it's stale and about to be deleted. Is this a notable person, and should the article be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we consider an Obie an award that makes someone notable? I'd say so, plus plays she's directed have been reviewed in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have postponed the deletion for six months; hopefully someone who knows about theatre will finish up the article and submit it. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Marc Blitzstein

WikiProject Opera chooses a composer article to expand (or create) each month. The composer for January is Marc Blitzstein, who died 50 years ago. WikiProject Theatre folks are welcome to help expand his biographical article. -- kosboot (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)