![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
So I've noticed that the "awards" sections in several articles have turned into long, unsightly lists. In an effort to combat this, I've created a mockup of a table that could list awards. It's over in the Template Sandbox. Right now it's hard coded, but eventually, I'd like to make it a sort of infobox style "just type the fields in here" template. But first, I thought it would be best to find an effective visual format. So take a look at the two mockups (a generic example and an "in-use" example) and tell me what ya think! Happy Editing! -- omtay 38 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, and alot tidier. Mark E ( talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Did we ever actually decide whether we were going to start using this template in the articles? It looks pretty good to me, and it would certainly help get rid of those long awards lists, but it doesn't look like anything ever really came of this discussion. — MearsMan talk 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to take a look at Category:Songs by the Sherman Brothers. Every single song they ever wrote has an article. Are all of these notable? There is a bit of a WP:COI issue here, as well, as I believe that the creator is the grandson of one of the brothers. What should be done? — Music Maker 5376 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
Sounds like a good plan. Happy New Year. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, this totals to something like 120 or so songs. I'm working on gathering information about them over here PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free to help (i.e. edit that page). Both Stub Length and Notable are completely personal judgement calls, just to get a quick sense of what we're dealing with. So if you've got nothing to do for a bit, feel free to go through these songs and list the creator, whether or not it's stub length, and if you think it's notable (i.e. worthy of inclusion). Thanks a bunch! -- omtay 38 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that those statistics would be helpful, Melon. In fact, I already think that we have too many columns in the table by specifying whether the article is currently a stub. The fact that an article is a stub only means that Howard352 did not have that much at the tip of his tongue to say about a particular song, but it may actually be misleading: There are lots of notable subjects that only have a stub (or no article at all yet) on Wikipedia. The question is simply whether the song is notable enough for its own article, and our judging the answer to that subjective question depends on the facts that we know (or can find) about the song, which are probably incomplete. Basically, it boils down to whether we Musicals Project people have heard of the song, or whether Howard352 has provided sufficient notability information in the article. A more reliable way to do it, of course, would be to do some research on each song, but that project is too big, and Wikipedia policy is to shoot first and make the editor come up with a better article with clearer notability information. So, I agree that where there is not enough notability info in the article, we are justified in PROD-ing it. Personally, I would leave the "maybe" ones alone for now, and just put a notability tag on them to try to attract more editors. Then, next summer when Omtay is out of school, he can check on them again and see if anyone has improved the article. Of course, if there is info in an article that is being PROD-ed or AfD'd that is not already in the show's article, I would suggest moving the info into the appropriate article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I broke the quote above into three criteria and placed them at the top of Omtay's page. We can refer to the criteria each passes by number. I'm noting that "is a standard" is not a criteria. Not sure how I feel about that. — Music Maker 5376 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a Disney wiki, isn't there? Most of these could possibly be transwikied there. For example, by the criteria at WP:MUS, The Best Time of Your Life is not notable. However, there's a wealth of information there that should be kept. Why don't we just move them en masse? — Music Maker 5376 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Check out this new article, Album musical. There is also an article called concept album. I notice that the editor of the new article has changed a lot of links from concept album point to the new article. Do we need both articles? Is the information in both articles the right information, or should some info from one be in another? I'm not an audiophile, so I hope someone can take a look and see if any correction is needed on these. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I created this page because "concept album" clearly does not cover the issue of original musicals created for records. All album musicals may be considered concept albums, but very few concept albums are album musicals. This was for many years (and still is) a genre unto itself. There are many other examples of album musicals (prior to 1969) that could be added to the page and none of them appeal to the same audience reading about rock albums tied together with a theme, etc. Even taking into consideration such albums as Jesus Christ Superstar and The Who's Tommy, the writers did not know when they created them that they would end up on the stage and, in fact, both had material added when they became stage shows. I hope you will not bury in the unwieldy concept page what I think is an interesting discussion on its own. Lumping album musicals in with all concept albums is like lumping all soundtrack albums onto the original cast album page. They are the same thing -- but they're not. Interestingly enough, You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," and yet it was completely ignored in the original article on You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, written by someone who knew little more than that there was a 1999 revival. This is a genre unto itself worth noting. I hope you agree. Sincerely, Rarmin ( talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As I noted above, You're a Good Man Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," which was demonstrably published in 1966. While I have seen the term used elsewhere, much of my record collection (which includes almost all of the American original cast albums released since the birth of recording to the dawn of the compact disc age, and a great many since) is packed away where I can't get at it at the moment, so I can't offer other examples. However, even with no other examples, why do you refer to my use of the term album musical as "claptrap?" Would you prefer to lump Stan Freberg Presents The United States of America, Volume One and Judy Garland in The Letter with albums by Smashing Pumpkins and the Beach Boys? How useful is the term "concept album," when the editor of that article clearly states that its difficult to define the term? I truly do not wish to step on any toes here, especially considering your extraordinary efforts to expand the musical theatre articles, but it seems to me that you should be more interested in correcting the many factual errors on Wikipedia than in criticizing what I think is an intelligent discussion on a unique genre of recording. By the way, I see that Hair is a major interest of yours. Do you know the name of the publication from which Rado and Ragni lifted the words to "Frank Mills?" I've had a copy since 1966. And I was at the Aquarius Theatre, helping clean up the mess, on the day the L.A. production opened. I look forward to seeing you at the Hair reunion next month. By the way, my name is Robert Armin. What's yours? Rarmin ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I don't know where this anger is coming from. Kill the page if you so choose, although I think you should get a few other opinions first. I wasn't trying to one-up you on Hair -- just showing a mutual interest. I suppose mentioning that I have the original off-Broadway script in manuscript before the show went into rehearsals at the Public might be considered pushing it a bit. So I won't. But I hope we can find a more friendly way to discuss musical theatre. Most sincerely, Robert Armin (real name). Rarmin ( talk) 04:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was about to send you a note on your own page to thank you for your supportive comments. But I'll do it here instead. Courtesy has not entirely died out, apparently. I gave my own name because I proudly stand behind what I contribute and will, graciously, accept corrections when they are warranted. I have submitted the question on "album musical" to a recognized expert in the field (other than myself) and will listen to his opinion on the matter. If there is another way to address this particular genre, so be it. I didn't coin the term, but I think it is a valid one. Fold the information into another page if that is the decision of whomever it is that makes these decisions. It seemed to me that this was a pretty good forum to offer my four decades of accumulated theatrical knowledge and, unless I am blocked in some way, I will continue to do so. As for Hair, I will wait until after the reunion next month before I disclose any "revelations" I may have. In 40 years, I've never heard or read the correct information on "Frank Mills." My best good wishes to you and MusicMaker5376. Rarmin ( talk) 05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me apologize for any feathers I might have ruffled; I certainly didn't mean to. An explanation:
This concept album/rock opera/rock musical debate has been smoldering for about three years, and was one of the first I came upon in WP. I argued 'till I was blue in the face for about two weeks before realizing that the inherent problem was that everyone involved with the argument -- myself included -- thinks everyone else is wrong and is completely unwilling to compromise, so, since then, I've just left it alone.
As you can see from my first comment, when I first saw this article, I liked it. Seems reasonable. Then I read it, and saw that you chose to include Tommy in this genre. I don't want to re-open this resurgent can of worms, but that pissed me off, so I called it "claptrap". To me, "claptrap" is an
inherently funny word -- two equally-weighted syllables, both starting with consonant blends, having the same vowel in the middle, and ending in "p". I should know from experience on both sides of the table that WP is the vortex at which all humor dies.
Then I felt that my credentials were being called into question on Hair. As is evident from my username, I was born 8 years after Hair opened on Bway. I won't be at the reunion because I have no one to reunite with. Though it does take place on my (and
Tom O'Horgan's) birthday, and, frankly, I couldn't think of a better way to spend my 32nd. (And, truly, I meant to pull "If you're so important..." from my response. There was another line in there along those lines that I took out, but missed that one, and, once you hit that "Save page" button, it's all out there....)
So, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.... I may be rude, but I always admit when I'm wrong. (If that is the case, and, frankly, it doesn't happen that often.... [There's that vortex, again....])
Now, as for this article, I would say that the pertinent information could probably be merged into
concept album, but with taking references to "album musical" out of the text and setting up a redirect at
album musical. (Like I said, I haven't looked at the article for concept album in about three years, so if that's not the best idea, I'm open to suggestions.) If
You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was, in fact, marketed as such, that can be mentioned -- but the only recordings I've been able to locate have been the original Off-Bway cast, orig Bway cast, and the '99 revival cast, so I would like to see a source. (I agree that that
that article is written from a very revival-centric viewpoint. It's a show that is very dear to my heart, and I would love to see a much better article up there.) If, at some point, someone writes something regarding the phenomenon of the "album musical" (and, preferably, it gains some currency in the community -- existence is not notability), I would not be against recreating the article. But, frankly, we're probably a good 5-10 years away from that point.
And, again, if you have any information to add to
Hair (musical), with the
proper citations, it would be greatly appreciated. As it stands, the article seems to skip about 15 years of productions of the show, jumping from the movie to the early 90s. There probably weren't many productions of note in the "Me decade" of the 80s, but it feels like it should be fleshed out a little bit. Also, if you happen to have any personal photos from the production that you wouldn't mind licensing under the
GFDL, that would be great. I'm in the process of writing Dagmar, the staff photographer of the production, but I wouldn't be surprised if she might not be willing to do so. And, if you have a source for the origination of "Frank Mills", I'm all about it -- it's my favorite song in the show (I used it as my
Facebook status yesterday). I'm not sure where we could fit it into the article, but there's very little in the article about the creation of the show -- my guess is that it's been lost to both antiquity and, erm, clouded memories. The article is coming along rather nicely, but it still has a ways to go.
So, again, my apologies. I promised myself that I would stop writing these long diatribes on WP as no one wants to take the time to read them. Yet another promise to myself shattered in pieces.... —
Music
Maker
5376
15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm honored that your latest "diatribe" was so positive -- and directed at me. This place is feeling more warm and cuddly already. Thanks. Rarmin ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take another look at the Album Musical page. I have attempted to add even more clarification to the genre. I think it addresses some of MusicMaker's feelings about rock musicals being incorporated and makes it clear that there is no one term for the genre, even though the genre clearly exists. Thanks. Rarmin ( talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this is not specifically in the area of the Musical Theatre project, but I just noticed the entry "gapless albums." This is a bizarre category that seems to exist primarily because of a feature created for the Ipod. A "gapless" album seems to be any recording in which the tracks crossfade into each other. Isn't any unedited "live" album automatically a gapless recording because of the applause leading into the next track. The first CD of "Phantom of the Opera" was, theoretically, gapless because the label didn't put in any track breaks on the disks. I haven't heard any of the recordings listed on the "gapless albums" page, but I would bet that most (if not all) have individual track numbers. I certainly have no objection to the existence of the "gapless albums" page (even though absolutely no other album page links to it), but it seems that there is a far more distinct genre of "album musical" than there is a "gapless album." Please do not take offense at these comments (as I know you had nothing to do with that page), but it does highlight the inexactitude of defining any type of recording. Rarmin ( talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to know there's a better page on the subject. I was using the gapless albums page as my sole reference. You're right -- there were gapless LPs for many years. A few of them actually were able to leave visual gaps in the vinyl even though the needle moved directly to the next track (especially in radio transcriptions), but it wasn't a common practice. Hope you get a chance to review my changes on the album musical page. I think it addresses a few of your issues. Rarmin ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There had been a discussion about Album musical awhile ago that you can read at the top of this page. I don't think that the editor had convinced most here that such a thing exists. I have put a dispute tag on the article. Would people please comment at the talk page there? Thanks! It may be a nice essay about something that doesn't really exist in the industry. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So, do you think we should remove the tags at the article? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears that someone has created this category as a subcat of Category:Musicals. I think this is something we had discussed previously, but I'm not sure if we came to any determination. With the demise of Category:Musicals by nationality, perhaps this method of categorization should be explored: we have Category:Musicals based on films; should we add Category:Musicals based on poems, Category:Musicals based on real-life events, Category:Musicals based on short stories, Category:Musicals based on plays, Category:Original musicals, and, of course, my favorite one-article category, Category:Musicals based on paintings. Any thoughts? — Music Maker 5376 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If there's no more discussion to be had about these, I think we can start implementing them. — Music Maker 5376 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've crossed the Rubicon and started to work with a few of these, so feel free to lend a helping hand if you feel so led. :-) — MearsMan talk 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at On the Town (musical), which is based on a ballet, and I was wondering if anyone knew of any other musicals like this. Should we consider creating a Category:Musicals based on ballets? — MearsMan talk 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Do articles on reality shows that cast leading roles in stage musicals, such as How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?, I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series), Any Dream Will Do (TV series), Grease: You're the One that I Want!, and Legally Blonde The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods, fall under the scope of this project? I noticed that the recently created Legally Blonde article is not listed as part of the project at the moment, but the other four are, and I began to wonder if this had ever been discussed in the past. — MearsMan talk 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would think that they do fall under our scope. First, there are not that many of them, and second, they usually concern revivals of important musicals. So, especially if a member of our project contributes to these articles, they may as well bear our banner as well as those of whatever other projects they fall under. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we're about two paragraphs away from Hair (musical) being ready for WP:FAC (one on the music being used as protest music in the 60s and one on the show's effect on B'way). I would really appreciate some fresh "theatre eyes" on the article. If you get a chance -- and you would really need some quality time; it's a long one -- please stop by the article and leave some constructive criticism on the talk page. And, if you have access to sources for the two paragraphs I mentioned -- or if you think the article needs anything else and you have the sources -- by all means, add it! Thanks in advance! (BTW: If it passes FA, it would be this project's first real FA. We have others that carry our tag, but weren't really worked on by members of the project....) — Music Maker 5376 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but a quick look at the article reminded me of a question I had. What is our project's stance on providing references for the plot synopsis of an article? Almost all musical theatre articles I've seen provide no source information for the plot section unless there's a direct quote used or something like that. However, when I was nominating a theatre article I wrote on The Voice of the Turtle (play) for DYK they asked me to go in and cite my sources for the synopsis because this is apparently the standard policy of that project. I've also noticed that A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant lists its sources in the synopsis section, and even though we didn't really work with this article, it is the only show in the project to have reached FA status. Obviously I'm not suggesting we remove the synopsis from all articles that don't cite their sources, but I'm just wondering if this is something that we need to be working on in the future. Additionally, if we decide this is something we need to do it would be important that we reference the Hair article before nominating it. — MearsMan talk 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Wicked cast lists has been AFDed. Cue a lot of list-adding to the main Wicked article. Could I ask you all to be vigilant, please?
I was going to say that this has potential repercussions for other musical cast lists, but I can't find many others (I'm sure there used to be more). List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members is the only one I can find...
EDIT: Oh, also Billy Elliot the Musical casts, Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists, List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts
-- Dafyd ( talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone recreated the Wicked cast lists article at List of Wicked cast members.... — MearsMan talk 05:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 518 of the articles assigned to this project, or 28.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any interest in this? It might be helpful for editors who are looking for things to do.... — Music Maker 5376 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We are set up to assess using the new "C-Class", but, basically, ALL B-class and Start Class articles need to be looked at to see if they now should be put under C-Class. I suspect that most of our B-class articles ought to be transferred to C-class. I did this exercise for the G&S project, but I do not have the time to do it for musicals. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your roll call message, the question of whether I'm a member of this Project is more complicated than "yes" or "no." As long as I edit on WP, musical theater will be one of my main subjects. However, I am editing far less frequently than I have in the past, and can't guarantee that I'll be devoting time to major rewrites or research projects anytime soon. I consider myself a member of the project, but if you wish to prune me, that's certainly your right. I sometimes think the whole concept of WikiProjects skirts uncomfortably close to WP:OWN at times, anyway, especially when one or two people are the main movers and shakers of the project. Happy editing. ChrisStansfield Contribs 10:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not assume that any "swipe" was meant. I have worked with both of you in the past and found you both to be excellent, knowledgeable and thoughtful editors. Chris, we certainly don't intend to assert OWNership of any articles, we are just trying to improve the coverage of musical theatre on Wikipedia. MusicMaker has been active in organizing our efforts to get articles written on musicals/creators/actors that didn't have articles, and helping the participants in this project to reach consensus on "suggested" guidelines for article structure so that there isn't complete chaos - just some chaos! LOL! It's fine if you only can contribute occasionally these days - any help is appreciated! MusicMaker, why didn't you complete the roll call? It seems like time to do it, no? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this addition to the Rent (musical) article notable enough for inclusion? Normally I'm quick to revert any edits that add information about high school or other minor productions to the articles, but I thought I'd better be safe and get a second opinion on this one, seeing as it does appear to be a bit more notable than most. — MearsMan talk 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that I just looked at the cited source, and while it does seem to support most of the information given, I saw no mention of this being the second high school production of the musical, which is probably the one thing that could make this production notable enough for inclusion.— MearsMan talk 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. A high school production could only be notable if it is a huge national event with very extensive major news coverage because of some really unique circumstance. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is about ready for a GA nom. Can someone please look at the article and give comments at the talk page and/or contribute to the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it for GA. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear everyone: What do you make of this? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to introduce myself and also commit myself to your effort! Please throw some work at me - I am ready and willing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treditor200 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok thank you so much for the welcome and tips! -- Treditor200 ( talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, but is there something more we can do about the non-notable replacement actors that are repeatedly being added to the article? The bulk of the last 50 edits is an IP adding a replacement and one of us later removing it, and frankly this is getting old quite quickly. The IP address keeps changing, so I don't know if a block would really work (or if we would even be granted one, for that matter), but does anyone else think a semi-protect might be appropriate? — MearsMan talk 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The Complete libretto link on Aida's page is dead. However after visiting the main page for that specific link, I found out it is temporarily closed. Should I delete the link or should we just monitor that link? Treditor200 ( talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. If a libretto exists on the internet (unless the libretto has been posted to the internet in violation of the copyright laws), I don't know of any reason why an External Link to it can't be listed at the bottom of the article. You just can't copy and paste the libretto into Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just clicked on it, and the link seems dead anyhow. What website was it? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Over the past week or so a couple articles related to Legally Blonde (musical) have been getting a lot of attention, most of which is coming from anonymous editors. Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists has seen numerous additions/removals of actors from the cast lists to the various productions, and while I've been doing my best to keep an eye on things I can barely tell at this point whether the edits are constructive or acts of vandalism (the entire article is poorly source). Additionally, Legally Blonde The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods has been getting plenty of attention, especially on Monday nights after new episodes of the show air. While there certainly seems to be less edit warring going on here, the page has still been the target of considerable vandalism, and things got so bad that I had to request semi-protection about a week back (protection was granted for three days). As I said, I've been doing the best I can with these articles, but they're poorly monitored and my current internet connection has been preventing me from keeping as careful a watch over them as I would like. If any of you would be willing to help me keep an eye on them, it would be greatly appreciated. — MearsMan talk 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a useful function in itself. If having them keeps the cruft out of the real article, I don't mind using Wikipedia's storage capabilities as a pacebo to placate the crufters. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly put them on my watchlist as I have been editing via the recent changes and random article link on the sidebar for quite a while now. Treditor200 ( talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have no problem watchlisting them myself. Always good to have an extra pair of eyes watching over. - Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out the legally blonde tour cast list and all of the names minus a few have been removed by a random IP. I checked through as many broadway sites and even tried google as much as I could stand to find a cast list. However, much to my surprise one has not been publicized yet. Has anyone seen an official cast list or does anyone know if coleen sexton has been confirmed for brooke wyndham? thanks! Treditor200 ( talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
67.189.232.190 has deleted the entire production section on the Legally Blonde (musical) page. I'm having trouble undoing it due to intermediate edits. Can anyone help with this? MarianKroy ( talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
Thanks for your help and the advice! MarianKroy ( talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The main article, Legally Blonde (musical), has been semi-protected. — Music Maker 5376 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit to our flagship article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Musical_theatre&diff=225292044&oldid=224468068 What do others think. Should it be reverted? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make a compromise edit, but the editor has added back a statement about musical films, which I don't think belongs in the musical theatre article's introduction. We may need to discus musical films somewhere in the article (we already refer to them), but I think this gives them too much prominence. Please take a look. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Mears Man is adding the category for West End Musicals to shows that had a West End run, even if the opened on Broadway (and, I assume vice versa). I thought that the category was supposed to be for debuts on Broadway/WE, not for subsequent productions? Just checking with you cat mavens. I have no opinion about it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about all the category chaos this past day or so! Before I started adding Category:London West End musicals I was wondering if it was for original runs or any show that played there, so I checked the category itself and the page says "Major musical theatre productions that have appeared in London West End theaters." Naturally, I took this to mean that the category was for any show that had played on the West End. If you want, I can try to go back through and remove that category from the pages I've added it to, although I would suggest changing the language on the category page itself. Also, while we're talking about it, does anyone object to Category:Off-Broadway musicals and Category:Broadway musicals being used on the same page? I know this one's a bit different, but I figured it would be best to ask now and save us trouble in the future. — MearsMan talk 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added cast lists, according to Broadway World, to 9 to 5 and A Tale of Two Cities. I also added show logos to each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treditor200 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Be careful to mention that the cast is announced or scheduled. Anything can happen between now and opening night. Look at Xanadu. The male lead was injured and replaced during previews. Also, Broadway productions can be cancelled prior to opening. So, it isn't the Broadway cast, it's just the announced cast, scheduled cast, slated cast, etc. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The descriptions of each episode are most likely copyvios. Of where, it's difficult to tell, but the same lines appear a few times throughout the Internet. If someone wants to attend to them, it would probably be a good idea. — Music Maker 5376 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the copy vio. But the article is so listy! All those lists about things that happen in each episode could be combined with the descriptions of the episodes in the boxes, IMO. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No boxes at all. Check it out! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Omigod! You're most welcome. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
One of our enthusiastic editors, Mizu, has removed the Principal roles table, which I know several editors had worked on pretty hard. There is a table like this in West Side Story, Wicked and a number of other musicals. I don't love them myself, but I think there should be a consensus before an editor just deletes a whole section. Mizu, would you start off the discussion, please? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you share the discussion that was had at that article with the other editors in the project? If enough people agree, we ought to clarify our article structure guidelines. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think lists are evil. I was of the persuasion that, if the main characters aren't all mentioned in the synopsis, then a character list is okay. On the other hand, I feel that if the main characters aren't mentioned in the synopsis, then the synopsis is likely faulty. On the other hand (yes, I have three hands), I also feel that there are some readers (remember them?) out there who don't want to read an entire synopsis, and a character list with descriptions allows them to get the basic idea of the show without reading the sometimes-quite-lengthy synopsises that can crop up 'round here. So, basically, I don't think they're always necessary, nor do I think they should be removed without discussion. (How's that for a completely out-of-character lack of opinion from MusicMaker?) — Music Maker 5376 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you're in the right, and I realise community consensus overrides anything I've learned elsewhere. Would any of you two kindly find a trout (or two, however many this stupid action by an experienced editor merits) to slap me with? :P In all seriousness, though. At this point I'll take the opportunity to revert my changes. I apologise for going against consensus as I've only been following the WikiProject closely for a month or so, therefore I'm not well-acquainted with discussions prior to my high activity. Many thanks, — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC).
No apologies necessary indeed: Your opinion is just as important as mine, but getting a consensus of opinion helps us all try to create a somewhat consistent style throughout the project. We have over 1,500 articles in the project (plus probably hundreds more untagged articles about people involved in musicals), and trying to get all the editors who work on them to do so with any degree of consistency is like trying to herd cats. But that's what a project is for - to try to develop consensus on style and to help each other deal with content issues. We'll never all agree on all the details, so I try to respect what other editors do, unless it disagrees with something that we have a consensus about. The good news is that articles are improving over time, and now we have some GA articles, a couple of FAs and are getting close to FA quality on a few others. As we create more high-quality articles, we will have more good examples of how things can be done. At the beginning of 2006, before Music Maker and a few other editors started working on musicals articles, the situation was pretty dire! And there was NO coverage at all of musicals prior to 1920. Now, we're cookin'! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, in Little Shop, Mizu has proposed deleting the section that shows the differences between the musical's plot and the 1960 film's plot. This is a reasonably well-written section, but it is not referenced, and Mizu interprets it as WP:OR. I feel confident that there must be some sources that discuss these differences, and so the section could be properly referenced, but I am going on an extended trip and cannot do the research. Can someone please address this? Thanks! In haste, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
- only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
- make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
<outdent> Actually, I like that idea a lot. It makes the process more natural, taking away the formality of that whole "nominate an article for CotM and then try to gain support for the nomination" scene. Not to mention that I think we'll be more willing to work on the collaboration this way, simply because the whole thing is less forced. Oh, and it cuts out the deadline, which is always a plus. I hate when it feels like WP has become yet another homework assignment for me.... But anyway, I don't see a problem with listing the current "pet project" under CC and switching it out every now and then as we move on to something new. It's a quick way for new editors to see what we've been working on, and I know I always get most fired-up about an article when I notice that a few other editors have taken an interest in it... I guess it helps knowing that I'm not going to be the only one working on the thing. — MearsMan talk 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please watch the page. I just reverted a re-write of the synopsis that was overly long, referred to production aspects and otherwise did not conform to our guidelines for synopses. Perhaps there is something worth salvaging in there. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I really have to say good job, SS. I've had LSoH watchlisted for a while now, but I'll keep an extra eye on it for now (and don't worry, I won't attack it!). — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Could use a blue pencil (and an infobox) if anyone is up to it.... — Music Maker 5376 05:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
...has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties can comment here. — Music Maker 5376 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings from the Opera Project. I see from the project page that:
* operettas - these form part of the WikiProject Opera, although if it is a grey area, there is nothing wrong with categorizing the work in both places
Perhaps we can clarify that the 'grey area' is specifically 'English-language' operettas, notably Broadway operettas? (See Category:English-language operettas.) German, French and Hungarian works don't prevent any problems - they come under Opera - and G&S has its own project.
IMO we should try not to overlap and double banner the articles because the style of editing - from the lead down to the references - is so different between the two projects. Thanks and best regards. -- Klein zach 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that this discussion should wait until Ssilvers ( talk · contribs) has returned from vacation. I know it's a month, but this question has been in the air for two years. It can wait another few weeks. — Music Maker 5376 04:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just back. With respect to the operetta articles that the opera project wishes to banner and edit under its guidelines, I think that is fine, and we can leave the articles under their banner. Kleinzach objects to having both banners on those articles, and there does not seem to be much benefit in arguing about it. With respect to English-language operettas, the opera project seems to have little interest in the bulk of those articles and to be happy for us to edit them under our guidlines. Kleinzach has placed our banner on many of them and removed the opera project banner. I have been editing most of these under the musicals format, so it makes sense for them to bear the musicals project banner. MusicMaker, if you think that I should update our "scope" along these lines, I'd be happy to give it a shot. Best regards. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Dan Knechtges choreographed Xanadu (nominated for a Tony for this) and the 25th Putnam County Spelling Bee, among other shows. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Dan+Knechtges%22&fulltext=Search Anyone feel like doing an article on him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the past few days, changes have been made to the synopsis of the musical. Can anyone verify whether the changes are correct? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been pages added for various songs from Starlight Express, all from one editor. I know I don't have an objective view on this show, So I'm asking you guys... does this seems excessive? These songs don't have much of a life outside the show, apart from the title song getting recorded quite often. I don't see the notability myself, and it seems most shows don't have individual articles for each number in the show. Also, quite a lot of the information is inaccurate, or accurate to just one production. Should I try to improve all these articles, or are they better deleted and any useful information included in the main article for Starlight Express? Belle pullman ( talk) 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless a song is notable outside of the musical, it should not have a separate article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what exactly happened to Category:Musicals based on television shows? It looks to me like it was supposed to be moved to something along the lines of Category:Musicals based on television programs based on this discussion, but instead it appears to have been outright deleted or moved to the wrong name (for some reason the discussion suggested that the category be moved to Films based on television programs, and my watchlist indicates that the category's talk page was moved to Category talk:Films adapted from a television series). Is anyone else able to make sense of what just happened, why it happened, or how to go about fixing it? — MearsMan talk 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently found out that Wikipedia has made a major change: No more linking of dates (unless the article is about the history of the date linked). See WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting. There is some kind of tool to de-link the dates and turn them into regular dates, like "April 5, 2008". This editor can explain how to delink dates in an article: User:Tony1. Gradually, the plan is to de-link dates in nearly all articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This Stephen Sondheim musical is now being produced in New York by the Public Theater under the name Road Show. Are New York productions (even off-Broadway) considered definitive? If so, does this article need to be renamed to Road Show (musical)? -- DrGaellon ( talk | contribs) 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't re-name it unless it moves to Broadway or runs for a year off-Broadway. I added a re-direct to the new name, and will disambiguate Road Show. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. I found myself reading the section above about those undesirable edits to the Musical theatre article, so had a look at the article. I amended and fleshed out slightly the ancient Greek section. I have some concerns about the Introduction too, but wanted to discuss them here before attempting any edit. There are three things that strike me about this:
Following your numbering system, some thoughts:
Any other opinions? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Integrated musical" is a commonly used term and is easily referenced. A quick google search brings up 31,700 references. See, e.g.: http://www.musicals101.com/stagecap.htm and http://www.jstor.org/pss/1225307 and this: ("integrated musical," is "a musical in which the book, lyrics, and score all grow from a central idea and all contribute to the story line"). Also, do you prefer "dramatic content" instead of "emotional content"? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Theatre is currently undergoing a portal peer review, and comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Theatre/archive1. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone notified you of this? No, I thought not. Johnbod ( talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This article about a major musical has no plot synopsis. Can someone add one, please? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made a proposal here to rename the "London West End musicals" category to "West End musicals", if you'd like to comment. DionysosProteus ( talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
May I bring to your attention an AfD for The Nervous Set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nervous Set. I should be grateful for input, one way or another, from this project, under the purview of which this article falls. Many thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Without wanting to reopen an old debate, Template:Broadway shows seems to have been added to a lot of musicals today... I'm inclined to remove it again, but I'm not sure. And should there be a corresponding one for the West End? Any comments? -- Dafyd ( talk) 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As we all agree, would someone kindly notify Bib, and anyone else who added it to articles, that we will be taking it down? Also, do we do an AfD, or is there some other process for deleting it? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I removedthe templates that Bib had put in over the last two days. Is there a way to figure out where else the template might still be? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed them all except for some redirects. Could someone take a look and see what ought to be done about them? here -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing those, since it was deleted. I hoped the template could be fixed, but yeah, it would be impossible to add every Broadway show ever, and a 'current shows' template does not work. Maybe next time I'll try to fix first, and add afterwards. Bib ( talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the lists of workshop casts and workshop songlist in this article, and an editor restored them. I think this is WP:Listcruft. This show has had an off-broadway run in 2008, and that is the most notable thing about it, unless it goes to B'way or the West End or has a long run somewhere else. So I focused the remaining info in the article on the off-Broadway version. I think that putting lists and lengthy information in about the workshop productions is not helpful to the readability of the article. What do others think? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
May I bring to your attention an AfD for Johnny Appleweed (a musical theatre production) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Appleweed. I should be grateful for input, one way or another, from this project, under the purview of which this article falls. Many thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please review this new article and try to fix it? (sigh) Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Should this be sent to AfD? If so, please put it up, and I will support. Also, someone keeps trying to add it to the List of rock musicals, but it seems, if anything, to be a rock opera, not a rock musical. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I initiated a discussion about the alleged source material for this musical at Talk: Evita. I hope some of you who are better musical theatre authorities than I am will take a look and add your comments, and maybe a more reliable reference than the one that was added. Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just made this article for the new musical. Any help appreciated. Mark E ( talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of creating an article on William Furst, who's probably best known (if at all) for his musical accompaniments to the original play versions of Madame Butterfly and The Girl of the Golden West. He's not a composer of musicals, so it would seem that he would not be a part of this project. But what project would he be a part of, or what categories can I place him into? Thanks. -- kosboot ( talk) 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add to our Article Structure guidelines that "Future productions should not be listed in infoboxes. Please wait until the production begins previews". Please vote below. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> Talk:Wicked (musical)#Broadway replacements. All comments greatly welcomed, even if they have been said a few thousand times before... </sigh> Happy‑ melon 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest renaming Cinderella (telefilms) to "Cinderella (1957 musical)". This would be consistant with the format used for Peter Pan (1954 musical). Cinderella was written for television, and although it was recorded on kinescope, it was not originally produced as a "telefilm" or Television movie. Comments? Thomprod ( talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"Impossible things are happening every day!" -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested a change to our article guidelines here. Please comment. Thomprod ( talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A few of us have been working on Coward and his play articles (there are many!). Anyone want to jump in and help out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that WP:WPMT has a page you can link to that shows recent updates to articles in the project. Even though I've tried to figure out how to do that, I can't. Can someone tell me or point to where there's an explanation? Thanks! -- kosboot ( talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, God! Please! No more categories! :-) -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Recently I just obtained a picture of her. I would not mind uploading it to Wikipedia. I know about licensing things, and got no problem with it as I took the picture myself. Now, the problem is that it is rather informal (at least in my opinion). If it is looking formal, I normally upload it without any question, but for this one, I would not bother uploading it just yet. I want to know the criteria for photos in Wikipedia before uploading. w_tanoto ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just restored this. Mind you, the article on chorus line isn't really very good (and Chorus girl redirects to it), but I think it's still a highly useful illustration of the subject, and, coming from 1900, provides a nice contrast to the modern image also used. (Surely we could say a fair bit more about chorus lines and chorus girls - start with things like this, mention Florodora and Gaiety Girls, and the Stage door Johnnys...) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Er, notable? I think not. See also Kenneth L. Ton, and the "footnotes" to that. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only does this article barely meet Wikipedia criteria, but I believe it may have been copied verbatim from another source. Hopefully someone involved with the musical theatre project will clean it up. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs some serious TLC I went on to find some info on the show and was faced with an article that had 3 plotlists and 5 song lists. I don't know the show very well so i'll leave it to someone who does. Mark E ( talk) 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but all these many lists and cast lists do not ALL belong in the article. See WP:NOT. If you wrote a book about Chess, you could list all this stuff, but WP is not about lists. You need to decide what is notable and keep only that. I began the process, streamlining out the obviously non-notable information, but there should probably be only two cast lists, including the final version, and the other production descriptions should describe in narrative paragraphs the notable changes from production to production. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I agree with all that, and I left in the full lists for several of the productions; but I turned the lists in some productions into narrative sentences listing only the notable names. Our guidlines call for a list of principal cast for the major original productions of musicals. What I and Mark are objecting to above was the multiple lists of casts for so many productions, including merely concert productions, as well as repeated plot summaries and song lists. I think the article is still a bit too listy, and that, for example, instead of re-listing full lists of musical numbers, there should be a narrative descriptions of the major changes from production-to-production. The reason for turning the information into narrative format is readability. WP articles should be readable, not a technical manual. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We have nominated this article for FA. Feel free to comment at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Help! Our project banner has gotten out of control, displaying a long task list. Can someone please remove the task list from our banner? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, it seems to be working. Sorry! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is about ready to be nominated at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments on the article (at the article's talk page), over the next week or so, before we nominate it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just prodded Sarah Hunt, and wanted to let you all know. I think she would fit in this category, but mainly I wanted to give a heads up in case anyone disagrees with me. tedder ( talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Yellowdesk is removing the future play template from articles because he thinks it's superfluous. If you disagree please post a comment on his talk page in the section I started. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new to the project as of today, and I think that we should come up with some sort of consistent way of including Awards and Nominations for shows. I've been surfing around the shows that won/were nominated last night at the Tony's and the inconsistency between articles is glaring and gross. I don't really care what the system ought to be, but it needs to be done. BirdDogg34 ( talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The layout of this article is a mess and makes it very difficult to read. I was going to fix it but I didn't want to upset anyone. If nobody objects I will fix it. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Are the changes by User:TheRedPenOfDoom vandalism? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of this show? I know nothing about it, but apparently it's a musical, judging by its inclusion in the "2006 musicals" category and our project's banner on the article's talk page. Anyway, the article is in rather poor shape and could use some serious attention. To be entirely honest I'm not even sure if it meets the notability requirements for inclusion, so it might need to be removed outright. I thought I'd drop a message here in case someone wanted to try their hand at it. — MearsMan talk 09:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor proposes to delete references to Pippin (musical), Wicked and Bat Boy from this article. I have seen all of these musicals and they seem like Rock musicals to me, but can anyone with add references? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rock_musical#Rock_musical_or_musical_with_rock_influences.3F Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
From the original Pippin review: "It is a commonplace [sic]set to rock music, and I must say I found most of the music somewhat characterless...It is nevertheless consistently tuneful and contains a few rock ballads that could prove memorable." Source: Clive Barnes, The New York Times, October 24, 1972, page 37.
Wicked reviews: Brantley (New York Times, 10/31/03): "swirling pop-eretta score"; Elysa Gardner (USA Today, 10/30/03): "haunting new songs...Add in tunes that you can actually leave the theater humming..."; Roma Torre (NY1, 10/31/03): "Schwartz...has written some lovely music, particularly his ballads for the witches, but the score is uneven and the beautiful melodies that marked his earlier works are disappointingly absent here."; Christopher Isherwood, (Daily Variety, 10/31/03): "jaunty vaudevillian number...the show's score features far too many competent but bland anthems written in an easy-listening Broadway pop mode." ; Clive Barnes (New York Post, 10/31/03): "Steven Schwartz's oppressive music and banal, if sometimes pretentiously amusing, lyrics...Schwartz...has produced the kind of bland, generic Broadway music where you tend to hear the orchestration (Alex Lacamoire, Stephen Oremus and James Lynn Abbott) before you notice the tune."
There are many many more, out of time now. But, I see nothing so far that would be a good source for Wicked being considered a rock musical. JeanColumbia ( talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
One more:
Is this a rock musical? Charles Isherwood (New York Times, February 9, 2007) wrote: "boasts an infectious, bouncy Latin-pop score...Some of the more earnest anthems, effective as they are, run in grooves derived equally from Broadway formulas and the new power-pop idioms employed with such exhausting frequency on “American Idol.”
I did not see the show. JeanColumbia ( talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the term is that it's anachronistic. In 1968, a "rock" musical was something notable since the majority of musicals did not have rock elements. In 2009, almost every new musical is in some way a rock musical, whether it chooses to call itself that or not. (I feel if a musical chooses to call itself that, it's trying to evoke a response from those who are nostalgic about rock.). So I'm not sure whether it's a wise thing to keep this category. --
kosboot (
talk)
21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Grease and Godspell are listed as examples of Rock Musicals here. The author, John Kenrick, is the Managing Director of the website Musicals101.com as well as teaching musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School and at Marymount Manhattan College. I think these shows' inclusion on his list is a good reference and have added it to the article. -- Thomprod ( talk) 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw Wicked three times and the last thing I would call it is a rock musical. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have sources handy to support my claims, but I'm relatively familiar with the cast recording of Bat Boy and I would definitely classify the show as a rock musical. On the other hand, I've seen Wicked and I never would have thought to apply the term "rock musical" to it. I don't know enough about Pippin or In the Heights to say anything either way. — MearsMan talk 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at [4] and cast your vote. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Have made an article for this new musical. Opens on July 16th so hopefully someone will post a plot summary.
I note that the Wiki Opera Project allows one to navigate from year to year without having to perform a search. (See the category 1894 operas for example.) I don't see how it's done, but might the Wiki Musical Theatre Project want to consider that? -- kosboot ( talk) 21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I created an article about Santa Maria (musical), which had music and lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein I. I pointed out that the program says "a romantic opera." So a non-member of this group User:Singingdaisies has tried to switch it to Santa Maria (opera) because the work is "verifiably" an opera (I switched it back). I tried to convince this person that most musicals of the time (1890s) were called operas and not musicals, but this person disagrees with me. I intend to find more source material to prove it's a musical, but if any of you can help me sway this person, it would be appreciated: Talk:Santa Maria (musical) -- kosboot ( talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Sarah Brightman/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can get some additional feedback re: listing current productions in West End theatre at Talk:West End theatre. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 13:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting. -- The Transhumanist 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we're largely in agreement here. In my opinion the outline articles often appear cluttered and are difficult to navigate or use in any reasonable fashion. I fail to see how the Musical Theatre project could benefit from such an outline, especially since the information is already covered just as well (if not better) elsewhere, as pointed out in the previous comments. — MearsMan talk 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A minor concern that I'm not sure has been discussed: in the "Awards" section, we focus mainly on production-specific awards. Does this include revivals? Meaning, can we include Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical in the infobox? — Music Maker 5376
Here is a bit on the background of La Cage-I don't know if you want to use it, it's not well-documented. The original musical was titled "The Queen of Basin Street"; here is the quote from the demo recording site: "Musical based on LA CAGE AUX FOLLES to be set in New Orleans and to be directed by Mike Nichols and choreographed by Tommy Tune. It fell apart and Jerry Herman ended up writing the score for LA CAGE AUX FOLLES". Composer Maury Yeston, book by Jay Presson Allen. Here:[ [5]].
There is a good interview in the New York Times, "How Stars of 'La Cage' Grew Into Their Roles", Aug 24, 1983, with Hearn & Barry, about their feelings about playing these roles (so very early 80s. JeanColumbia ( talk) 11:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Music Maker and Jean Columbia! I will certainly take a look at that and im sure my college library will have the Herman Biography when I go back next month. I went to my local library today but couldnt find anything really, although I did find some nice holiday reading (Elaine Paige's Autobiography!). Thanks again! Mark E ( talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) P.s. i also think its definitely time i learn how to cite references properly! can't get away with it forever :P. Mark E ( talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Mark E nominated the article Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists for deletion. I wanted to note that there are other cast list articles that you might want to consider the AFD process for: Billy Elliot the Musical casts; List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members; List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts (nominated for deletion on June 20, 2007, result:Keep, no consensus). I think if the Legally Blonde cast list article is deleted, there is a case for deleting the others. JeanColumbia ( talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
For another example of where I think a table could be used to organise information, see The Drowsy Chaperone. The article is not too bad until the cast lists and especially the hidious rewards list, this could be much more nicely organised. It is also incomplete, with Olivier Award nominations not mentioned. Or (and I don't know what the opinion is on this), make it like I have done the productions of La Cage aux Folles (musical) and also how Hair (musical) displays the casting/award information in prose. I actually used the format of Hair to revamp the La Cage productions section. Mark E ( talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If the hope is to get Hair (musical) to featured article status (which im sure it will. The article is outstanding), then I would be inclined to go with how the information is represented in that article. No awards tables, no cast lists and just expanded sections on each of the productions (ala my recent edits to La Cage aux Folles (musical). Mark E ( talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on this article the past few days and would maybe like some informal feedback? I have worked mainly on the productions section although hope to work on the plot summary to add in the songs and incorporate character information so I can take out the dreaded character list. Is there anything else you can think of maybe adding into the article? I'd like to think it could be of GA standard someday. Mark E ( talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In film articles, the plot synopsis comes after the opening. This makes sense because the first thing most people want to know is what the film is about. But I notice in articles about musicals, the plot synopsis usually comes later in the article, after the section about the different productions, which doesn't make sense to me. In most articles, I'll read that "John Smith" played "Lead Male Character" before I know who "Lead Male Character" is. If I have to scroll down to find out, then the article isn't very reader friendly. I think most people want to know who "Lead Male Character" is and what happens to him in the plot BEFORE they know who played him. Can someone justify why the plot synopsis comes so late in the article instead of just saying because that's the way it's supposed to be done? I just want to say that from the POV of someone who is looking for information, the information is coming in the wrong order. 172.134.81.64 ( talk) 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
And, the nice thing about putting the synopsis before the production info is that it doesn't require a vote--it's already in your article structure guidelines. All you need to do is to decide to implement what your established guidelines are. JeanColumbia ( talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be some discussion of background (genesis) of the show before the synopsis, but I agree that the productions section can go later. Nevertheless, I think it is just as sensible to do it as shown in Hair (musical). It's in the Table of Contents - it's easy enough to skip there if all you want is plot. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I find the film articles jarring. I still think that it makes sense to see the history/development section before the plot synopsis. Hey, anonymous users who are contributing to this discussion, if you are interested in musicals articles, I suggest that you register an account and join WP:MUSICALS. I wonder whether even film articles that have been promoted to FA just jump in with the synopsis section. Does anyone know? All the WP:G&S articles that have been promoted to FA start with history/background. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
MM: Thanks for the research on the film FAs. I don't think that your statement is a fair accusation, however. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean that your reasons are about "readability", while mine are "merely aesthetic". I think it is logical, and contributes to readability, that a history/background of what happened to create the show and bring it to a full production should go before the description of the show itself, including the plot summary. Remember, the WP:LEAD should contain a very brief plot as part of the overview of the article. Your argument above that a short article has most of its info in the lead is specious: our goal is to expand all of our articles to contain full information as described in our article structure guidelines. If a new consensus of members of the project disagree, OK, but in the past most members of the project agreed with me, as reflected in our guidelines and the current structure of most of our articles. Now it seems that several of the editors who were around when we designed the guidelines (mostly in 2006) are inactive here. But instead of you, me and an anonymous editor continuing to reiterate our opinions, can we get some opinions from other members of the committee? I am happy to yield to a consensus of editors, if there is a consensus, to change our guidelines even though I do not personally agree with it. I would note, that as described above, our articles are now mostly consistent with the order described in our guidelines, so if we decide to change it, that is going to be a lot of work with little gain. Instead, I would propose that if we do have some more active editors than we have had over the past two years, that we start a project to improve our many stubs - I estimate that we have over 500 articles with no plot summaries (or a perfunctory plot summary). All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous editors are entitled to opinions and just because they don't have user names or aren't "members of the committee" or "members of the project" doesn't mean they aren't valid. I know exactly what MusicMaker5376 means by "readability" - if you're reading comments about characters or plot details that haven't been described yet because the production section comes before the synopsis, then the article isn't "readable". 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This version of
Hair (musical) moves the synopsis directly after the history, now before the section on productions instead of after it.
To me, it seems like, now, it would make more sense to have the productions all in one section, toward the end. Let the synopsis flow into themes, etc., then discuss the productions
like this, with perhaps the critical reception section in with the productions. Thoughts? —
Music
Maker
5376
21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to start another discusson in the midst of the other one, but I just noticed that an editor renamed the article Title of Show and changed all occurances of [title of show] to Title of Show (except one in the lede) in this edit, citing WP:MOSTM for the change. It was my understanding that the show's actual title was [title of show] (lowercase with brackets), based on the official website, IBDB, Playbill etc. If this were one of those situations where I'd seen the show's title rendered multiple ways I wouldn't question it, but I've honestly never seen it referred to as anything other than [title of show].
Apparently, however, there's a policy in place stating that the title should be rendered as Title of Show on Wikipedia "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." I haven't come across a situation like this before, and I'm honestly not sure which way is correct anymore, so I thought I'd ask for some of your thoughts on the matter. — MearsMan talk 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
See further examples: the film AdULTHOOD - correctly styled as Adulthood, KiDULTHOOD - correctly styled as Kidulthood. There are literally hundreds of films that are "styled" with the titles in ALL CAPS but this is not adopted in wikipedia, so why should lowercase lettering and purely decorative punctuation marks need to be used for every instance of the title? Explain why it is so important that the stylistic form of the title is used throughout, rather than mentioned in the lead only? Just because WP:MOSTM is "only" a guideline, does not mean that you can pick and choose when to abide by it and when to ignore it. You need to have pretty sound reasons to do so. I have seen no logical reason presented thus far. The argument that it's the "official name" or whatever doesn't stick. It is the way the title is styled. The actual name does not change. Please explain how [title of show] is pronounced any differently to Title of Show... Nouse4aname ( talk)
The problem with WP:MOSTM is that it mixes trademarks with titles, and they're two completely different things. And Nouse4name, every example you cited is not "correctly" styled, it's styled according to some bizarre Wikipedia guideline that thinks it's OK to take a writer's work and change it. I wonder how these writers would feel about that. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nouse4aname, I think part of the issue stems from your lack of familiarity with the show in question. [title of show] isn't rendered as such just to look spiffy or draw attention to itself: it is to signify that, in essence, the show itself has no title. [title of show] documents its own creation, its own existence. It's a musical about the creation of a musical about the creation of a musical ad nauseam. The people who wrote the musical star in the show as themselves, recreating the creation process of the production. The show contains conversations about what the show should be about, and there are songs about writing songs. [title of show] isn't so much an actual title as it is a placeholder for the title of a show that remains untitled. To wrongly change the name to Title of Show is to assign the show a proper title, which I find to be a gross misrepresentation of the playwright’s original intentions. — MearsMan talk 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of infoboxes are overlinked or incorrectly linked. A name should be linked once. If the person wrote the book, lyrics, and music, his or her name shouldn't be linked three times. If a show was revived on Broadway five times, Broadway shouldn't be linked for every revival that's listed. Also, the year of a production shouldn't be linked just to the year. If you think about it, the reason links exist is to let you get more information related to the subject of the article. Most article links now bring you to an article about that year. The correct link should be 2008, which will bring you to 2008 in theatre instead of just the year 2008. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do the years need to be linked at all? It all seems like overlinking to me. Also, when the same person writes two or three of book, lyrics and music, why write thier names three times? In some infoboxes, the team of writers all have their names listed three times. Is there a way to fix the template so that we could have the option to say, "Book, lyrics and music by Rupert Holmes", for example? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion? If a person is adding new information to an old article, don't stop there, look to see if anything needs fixing, like incorrect or duplicate links or anything else covered by guidelines changes. It really won't take that long to clean up an article. LargoLarry ( talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does the list of stage appearances include the dates of the entire run of the show whether or not she was in it for the entire run?
It doesn't make sense to say
I think the article should list only the dates she was in it or no dates at all. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Larry, I agree with you. The dates that she played the characters should be the ones noted in her article. However, it would be better to convert the list to prose paragraphs, explaining how each stage appearance fit into her career as a whole. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally, for stage works, I would describe the actor's major appearances in prose and not have a list. If there is any important information in the list that is not already described in the prose, it should be added to the appropriate prose paragraphs, and then I'd say the list can be removed. I can understand why people list filmographies, I guess. But I'd put the filmography in two colums to reduce white space. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm just popping in randomly here. I noticed that a couple musicals didn't have italicized titles. For example, none of the articles in this category are italicized. What is the correct behavior? These articles have italics in the lead (Shear Madness is...), so why not in the header? She these articles be using {{ italic title}}? Timneu22 ( talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems like "make-work" to me, and MM's experiment with the title of Hair (musical) is a good illustration of how unnecessary it is. If we are ready to resume organized work on the project, I would suggest, instead, a project either to improve stubs or to upgrade an "article of the month". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The italics thing seems like "make-work" to me, and MM's experiment with the title of Hair (musical) is a good illustration of how unnecessary it is. If we are ready to resume organized work on the project, I would suggest, instead, a project either to improve stubs or to upgrade an "article of the month". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A great example of this is By the Beautiful Sea, which Jean recently improved (great work, as always, Jean!). Generally, to get a stub up to Start class, we will need to add a plot synopsis and a couple of refs. Let me know when you want to get started, Jean, and I'll join in. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct to assume a film version of a musical shouldn't be listed as a production in the infobox? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Should this article be deleted? If not, can someone please... er... fix it? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The following comment was left at the talk page of the article on Smokey Joe's Cafe ( Talk:Smokey_Joe's_Cafe):
"Critical reception"
"Articles about musicals and plays are supposed to be about the works in general so critical reception should be limited to comments about the script and score and shouldn't include references to performances in specific productions."
Would you members of the project kindly add this to your instructions for this item (Critical reception under Response), (1) because I will forget it; (2) because the instructions are quite open as they stand now and subject to interpretation; (3) it is a waste of time, effort, and potentially really hurts the key-board to type in all that useless information; and (4) everyone needs to know this important instruction. Thanks, (NOW I am wikibreaking!) JeanColumbia ( talk) 20:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, that is wrong. While critical response section should certainly describe the critics' reaction to the script and score, they can also comment on the critics' reactions to particular major productions. I completely disagree with the comment at Smokey Joe's and I'm going to say so. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, with respect to specific comments in reviews about specific actors that do not much affect the overall review of the production. However, if a review describes how the West End production was well directed, acted and/or designed, and another review describes how the Broadway production was disappointing, that is important information about the musical and its major productions. There is no other article where this information will be found. Anonymous editors, please see WP:WHY: If you register an address, we will be able to see that you are not the person who has vandalized so many articles using your IP address. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? You can say, "The original production was panned by the critics. For example, Clive Barnes wrote [giving examples].[ref] However, the revival at the Goodspeed Opera House in 1992 received raves [giving examples]. It ran for 17 years and was the second-most successful U.S. regional revival in history.[ref] However, subsequent regional revivals have fared poorly, closing quickly and losing massive amounts of money.[refs]. The 2009 West End revival, however, has been a hit at the box office, pulling in over 2 million pounds per week since opening.[ref]" And so forth. That way, you can see in one place, and easily compare, how different productions of the show did. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I would call these sections "Reception" rather than "Critical reception", becuase they should discuss the critical AND audience reactions, as well as financial success or failure. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
[left]The performances in major productions of a musical are important to the article about the musical. If critics said so, then it is important to note that Mary Martin's performance in The Sound of Music contributed to its success. However, I agree that the reception discussion should focus on the aspects of the reviews that are most important to understanding how the musical itself was received. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I read Wikipedia on a regular basis and I edit it once in awhile. My main interests are film and theatre so I read those articles most. Since I'm not a member of this project maybe my POV is a little more objective. This was a very interesting discussion and it's a shame some people have to get nasty instead of just realizing everyone is entitled to an opinion. I understand what 209.247.22.164 is saying and it's unfortunate some people are so quick to think someone without a name isn't worth listening to. I think some people get so obsessed with Wikipedia they're not able to see all sides of an argument. The funny thing is years from now we'll be dead and gone and a new generation will be editing Wikipedia according to different guidelines they come up with. Everyone should stop being so serious and nobody should think he or she is better than anyone else. Have fun! LargoLarry ( talk) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
So I've noticed that the "awards" sections in several articles have turned into long, unsightly lists. In an effort to combat this, I've created a mockup of a table that could list awards. It's over in the Template Sandbox. Right now it's hard coded, but eventually, I'd like to make it a sort of infobox style "just type the fields in here" template. But first, I thought it would be best to find an effective visual format. So take a look at the two mockups (a generic example and an "in-use" example) and tell me what ya think! Happy Editing! -- omtay 38 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, and alot tidier. Mark E ( talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Did we ever actually decide whether we were going to start using this template in the articles? It looks pretty good to me, and it would certainly help get rid of those long awards lists, but it doesn't look like anything ever really came of this discussion. — MearsMan talk 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to take a look at Category:Songs by the Sherman Brothers. Every single song they ever wrote has an article. Are all of these notable? There is a bit of a WP:COI issue here, as well, as I believe that the creator is the grandson of one of the brothers. What should be done? — Music Maker 5376 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
Sounds like a good plan. Happy New Year. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, this totals to something like 120 or so songs. I'm working on gathering information about them over here PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free to help (i.e. edit that page). Both Stub Length and Notable are completely personal judgement calls, just to get a quick sense of what we're dealing with. So if you've got nothing to do for a bit, feel free to go through these songs and list the creator, whether or not it's stub length, and if you think it's notable (i.e. worthy of inclusion). Thanks a bunch! -- omtay 38 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that those statistics would be helpful, Melon. In fact, I already think that we have too many columns in the table by specifying whether the article is currently a stub. The fact that an article is a stub only means that Howard352 did not have that much at the tip of his tongue to say about a particular song, but it may actually be misleading: There are lots of notable subjects that only have a stub (or no article at all yet) on Wikipedia. The question is simply whether the song is notable enough for its own article, and our judging the answer to that subjective question depends on the facts that we know (or can find) about the song, which are probably incomplete. Basically, it boils down to whether we Musicals Project people have heard of the song, or whether Howard352 has provided sufficient notability information in the article. A more reliable way to do it, of course, would be to do some research on each song, but that project is too big, and Wikipedia policy is to shoot first and make the editor come up with a better article with clearer notability information. So, I agree that where there is not enough notability info in the article, we are justified in PROD-ing it. Personally, I would leave the "maybe" ones alone for now, and just put a notability tag on them to try to attract more editors. Then, next summer when Omtay is out of school, he can check on them again and see if anyone has improved the article. Of course, if there is info in an article that is being PROD-ed or AfD'd that is not already in the show's article, I would suggest moving the info into the appropriate article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I broke the quote above into three criteria and placed them at the top of Omtay's page. We can refer to the criteria each passes by number. I'm noting that "is a standard" is not a criteria. Not sure how I feel about that. — Music Maker 5376 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a Disney wiki, isn't there? Most of these could possibly be transwikied there. For example, by the criteria at WP:MUS, The Best Time of Your Life is not notable. However, there's a wealth of information there that should be kept. Why don't we just move them en masse? — Music Maker 5376 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Check out this new article, Album musical. There is also an article called concept album. I notice that the editor of the new article has changed a lot of links from concept album point to the new article. Do we need both articles? Is the information in both articles the right information, or should some info from one be in another? I'm not an audiophile, so I hope someone can take a look and see if any correction is needed on these. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I created this page because "concept album" clearly does not cover the issue of original musicals created for records. All album musicals may be considered concept albums, but very few concept albums are album musicals. This was for many years (and still is) a genre unto itself. There are many other examples of album musicals (prior to 1969) that could be added to the page and none of them appeal to the same audience reading about rock albums tied together with a theme, etc. Even taking into consideration such albums as Jesus Christ Superstar and The Who's Tommy, the writers did not know when they created them that they would end up on the stage and, in fact, both had material added when they became stage shows. I hope you will not bury in the unwieldy concept page what I think is an interesting discussion on its own. Lumping album musicals in with all concept albums is like lumping all soundtrack albums onto the original cast album page. They are the same thing -- but they're not. Interestingly enough, You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," and yet it was completely ignored in the original article on You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, written by someone who knew little more than that there was a 1999 revival. This is a genre unto itself worth noting. I hope you agree. Sincerely, Rarmin ( talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As I noted above, You're a Good Man Charlie Brown was released originally as "An Original Album Musical," which was demonstrably published in 1966. While I have seen the term used elsewhere, much of my record collection (which includes almost all of the American original cast albums released since the birth of recording to the dawn of the compact disc age, and a great many since) is packed away where I can't get at it at the moment, so I can't offer other examples. However, even with no other examples, why do you refer to my use of the term album musical as "claptrap?" Would you prefer to lump Stan Freberg Presents The United States of America, Volume One and Judy Garland in The Letter with albums by Smashing Pumpkins and the Beach Boys? How useful is the term "concept album," when the editor of that article clearly states that its difficult to define the term? I truly do not wish to step on any toes here, especially considering your extraordinary efforts to expand the musical theatre articles, but it seems to me that you should be more interested in correcting the many factual errors on Wikipedia than in criticizing what I think is an intelligent discussion on a unique genre of recording. By the way, I see that Hair is a major interest of yours. Do you know the name of the publication from which Rado and Ragni lifted the words to "Frank Mills?" I've had a copy since 1966. And I was at the Aquarius Theatre, helping clean up the mess, on the day the L.A. production opened. I look forward to seeing you at the Hair reunion next month. By the way, my name is Robert Armin. What's yours? Rarmin ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I don't know where this anger is coming from. Kill the page if you so choose, although I think you should get a few other opinions first. I wasn't trying to one-up you on Hair -- just showing a mutual interest. I suppose mentioning that I have the original off-Broadway script in manuscript before the show went into rehearsals at the Public might be considered pushing it a bit. So I won't. But I hope we can find a more friendly way to discuss musical theatre. Most sincerely, Robert Armin (real name). Rarmin ( talk) 04:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was about to send you a note on your own page to thank you for your supportive comments. But I'll do it here instead. Courtesy has not entirely died out, apparently. I gave my own name because I proudly stand behind what I contribute and will, graciously, accept corrections when they are warranted. I have submitted the question on "album musical" to a recognized expert in the field (other than myself) and will listen to his opinion on the matter. If there is another way to address this particular genre, so be it. I didn't coin the term, but I think it is a valid one. Fold the information into another page if that is the decision of whomever it is that makes these decisions. It seemed to me that this was a pretty good forum to offer my four decades of accumulated theatrical knowledge and, unless I am blocked in some way, I will continue to do so. As for Hair, I will wait until after the reunion next month before I disclose any "revelations" I may have. In 40 years, I've never heard or read the correct information on "Frank Mills." My best good wishes to you and MusicMaker5376. Rarmin ( talk) 05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me apologize for any feathers I might have ruffled; I certainly didn't mean to. An explanation:
This concept album/rock opera/rock musical debate has been smoldering for about three years, and was one of the first I came upon in WP. I argued 'till I was blue in the face for about two weeks before realizing that the inherent problem was that everyone involved with the argument -- myself included -- thinks everyone else is wrong and is completely unwilling to compromise, so, since then, I've just left it alone.
As you can see from my first comment, when I first saw this article, I liked it. Seems reasonable. Then I read it, and saw that you chose to include Tommy in this genre. I don't want to re-open this resurgent can of worms, but that pissed me off, so I called it "claptrap". To me, "claptrap" is an
inherently funny word -- two equally-weighted syllables, both starting with consonant blends, having the same vowel in the middle, and ending in "p". I should know from experience on both sides of the table that WP is the vortex at which all humor dies.
Then I felt that my credentials were being called into question on Hair. As is evident from my username, I was born 8 years after Hair opened on Bway. I won't be at the reunion because I have no one to reunite with. Though it does take place on my (and
Tom O'Horgan's) birthday, and, frankly, I couldn't think of a better way to spend my 32nd. (And, truly, I meant to pull "If you're so important..." from my response. There was another line in there along those lines that I took out, but missed that one, and, once you hit that "Save page" button, it's all out there....)
So, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.... I may be rude, but I always admit when I'm wrong. (If that is the case, and, frankly, it doesn't happen that often.... [There's that vortex, again....])
Now, as for this article, I would say that the pertinent information could probably be merged into
concept album, but with taking references to "album musical" out of the text and setting up a redirect at
album musical. (Like I said, I haven't looked at the article for concept album in about three years, so if that's not the best idea, I'm open to suggestions.) If
You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown was, in fact, marketed as such, that can be mentioned -- but the only recordings I've been able to locate have been the original Off-Bway cast, orig Bway cast, and the '99 revival cast, so I would like to see a source. (I agree that that
that article is written from a very revival-centric viewpoint. It's a show that is very dear to my heart, and I would love to see a much better article up there.) If, at some point, someone writes something regarding the phenomenon of the "album musical" (and, preferably, it gains some currency in the community -- existence is not notability), I would not be against recreating the article. But, frankly, we're probably a good 5-10 years away from that point.
And, again, if you have any information to add to
Hair (musical), with the
proper citations, it would be greatly appreciated. As it stands, the article seems to skip about 15 years of productions of the show, jumping from the movie to the early 90s. There probably weren't many productions of note in the "Me decade" of the 80s, but it feels like it should be fleshed out a little bit. Also, if you happen to have any personal photos from the production that you wouldn't mind licensing under the
GFDL, that would be great. I'm in the process of writing Dagmar, the staff photographer of the production, but I wouldn't be surprised if she might not be willing to do so. And, if you have a source for the origination of "Frank Mills", I'm all about it -- it's my favorite song in the show (I used it as my
Facebook status yesterday). I'm not sure where we could fit it into the article, but there's very little in the article about the creation of the show -- my guess is that it's been lost to both antiquity and, erm, clouded memories. The article is coming along rather nicely, but it still has a ways to go.
So, again, my apologies. I promised myself that I would stop writing these long diatribes on WP as no one wants to take the time to read them. Yet another promise to myself shattered in pieces.... —
Music
Maker
5376
15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm honored that your latest "diatribe" was so positive -- and directed at me. This place is feeling more warm and cuddly already. Thanks. Rarmin ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take another look at the Album Musical page. I have attempted to add even more clarification to the genre. I think it addresses some of MusicMaker's feelings about rock musicals being incorporated and makes it clear that there is no one term for the genre, even though the genre clearly exists. Thanks. Rarmin ( talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this is not specifically in the area of the Musical Theatre project, but I just noticed the entry "gapless albums." This is a bizarre category that seems to exist primarily because of a feature created for the Ipod. A "gapless" album seems to be any recording in which the tracks crossfade into each other. Isn't any unedited "live" album automatically a gapless recording because of the applause leading into the next track. The first CD of "Phantom of the Opera" was, theoretically, gapless because the label didn't put in any track breaks on the disks. I haven't heard any of the recordings listed on the "gapless albums" page, but I would bet that most (if not all) have individual track numbers. I certainly have no objection to the existence of the "gapless albums" page (even though absolutely no other album page links to it), but it seems that there is a far more distinct genre of "album musical" than there is a "gapless album." Please do not take offense at these comments (as I know you had nothing to do with that page), but it does highlight the inexactitude of defining any type of recording. Rarmin ( talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to know there's a better page on the subject. I was using the gapless albums page as my sole reference. You're right -- there were gapless LPs for many years. A few of them actually were able to leave visual gaps in the vinyl even though the needle moved directly to the next track (especially in radio transcriptions), but it wasn't a common practice. Hope you get a chance to review my changes on the album musical page. I think it addresses a few of your issues. Rarmin ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There had been a discussion about Album musical awhile ago that you can read at the top of this page. I don't think that the editor had convinced most here that such a thing exists. I have put a dispute tag on the article. Would people please comment at the talk page there? Thanks! It may be a nice essay about something that doesn't really exist in the industry. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So, do you think we should remove the tags at the article? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears that someone has created this category as a subcat of Category:Musicals. I think this is something we had discussed previously, but I'm not sure if we came to any determination. With the demise of Category:Musicals by nationality, perhaps this method of categorization should be explored: we have Category:Musicals based on films; should we add Category:Musicals based on poems, Category:Musicals based on real-life events, Category:Musicals based on short stories, Category:Musicals based on plays, Category:Original musicals, and, of course, my favorite one-article category, Category:Musicals based on paintings. Any thoughts? — Music Maker 5376 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If there's no more discussion to be had about these, I think we can start implementing them. — Music Maker 5376 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've crossed the Rubicon and started to work with a few of these, so feel free to lend a helping hand if you feel so led. :-) — MearsMan talk 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at On the Town (musical), which is based on a ballet, and I was wondering if anyone knew of any other musicals like this. Should we consider creating a Category:Musicals based on ballets? — MearsMan talk 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Do articles on reality shows that cast leading roles in stage musicals, such as How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?, I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series), Any Dream Will Do (TV series), Grease: You're the One that I Want!, and Legally Blonde The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods, fall under the scope of this project? I noticed that the recently created Legally Blonde article is not listed as part of the project at the moment, but the other four are, and I began to wonder if this had ever been discussed in the past. — MearsMan talk 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would think that they do fall under our scope. First, there are not that many of them, and second, they usually concern revivals of important musicals. So, especially if a member of our project contributes to these articles, they may as well bear our banner as well as those of whatever other projects they fall under. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we're about two paragraphs away from Hair (musical) being ready for WP:FAC (one on the music being used as protest music in the 60s and one on the show's effect on B'way). I would really appreciate some fresh "theatre eyes" on the article. If you get a chance -- and you would really need some quality time; it's a long one -- please stop by the article and leave some constructive criticism on the talk page. And, if you have access to sources for the two paragraphs I mentioned -- or if you think the article needs anything else and you have the sources -- by all means, add it! Thanks in advance! (BTW: If it passes FA, it would be this project's first real FA. We have others that carry our tag, but weren't really worked on by members of the project....) — Music Maker 5376 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but a quick look at the article reminded me of a question I had. What is our project's stance on providing references for the plot synopsis of an article? Almost all musical theatre articles I've seen provide no source information for the plot section unless there's a direct quote used or something like that. However, when I was nominating a theatre article I wrote on The Voice of the Turtle (play) for DYK they asked me to go in and cite my sources for the synopsis because this is apparently the standard policy of that project. I've also noticed that A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant lists its sources in the synopsis section, and even though we didn't really work with this article, it is the only show in the project to have reached FA status. Obviously I'm not suggesting we remove the synopsis from all articles that don't cite their sources, but I'm just wondering if this is something that we need to be working on in the future. Additionally, if we decide this is something we need to do it would be important that we reference the Hair article before nominating it. — MearsMan talk 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Wicked cast lists has been AFDed. Cue a lot of list-adding to the main Wicked article. Could I ask you all to be vigilant, please?
I was going to say that this has potential repercussions for other musical cast lists, but I can't find many others (I'm sure there used to be more). List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members is the only one I can find...
EDIT: Oh, also Billy Elliot the Musical casts, Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists, List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts
-- Dafyd ( talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone recreated the Wicked cast lists article at List of Wicked cast members.... — MearsMan talk 05:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 518 of the articles assigned to this project, or 28.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any interest in this? It might be helpful for editors who are looking for things to do.... — Music Maker 5376 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We are set up to assess using the new "C-Class", but, basically, ALL B-class and Start Class articles need to be looked at to see if they now should be put under C-Class. I suspect that most of our B-class articles ought to be transferred to C-class. I did this exercise for the G&S project, but I do not have the time to do it for musicals. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your roll call message, the question of whether I'm a member of this Project is more complicated than "yes" or "no." As long as I edit on WP, musical theater will be one of my main subjects. However, I am editing far less frequently than I have in the past, and can't guarantee that I'll be devoting time to major rewrites or research projects anytime soon. I consider myself a member of the project, but if you wish to prune me, that's certainly your right. I sometimes think the whole concept of WikiProjects skirts uncomfortably close to WP:OWN at times, anyway, especially when one or two people are the main movers and shakers of the project. Happy editing. ChrisStansfield Contribs 10:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not assume that any "swipe" was meant. I have worked with both of you in the past and found you both to be excellent, knowledgeable and thoughtful editors. Chris, we certainly don't intend to assert OWNership of any articles, we are just trying to improve the coverage of musical theatre on Wikipedia. MusicMaker has been active in organizing our efforts to get articles written on musicals/creators/actors that didn't have articles, and helping the participants in this project to reach consensus on "suggested" guidelines for article structure so that there isn't complete chaos - just some chaos! LOL! It's fine if you only can contribute occasionally these days - any help is appreciated! MusicMaker, why didn't you complete the roll call? It seems like time to do it, no? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this addition to the Rent (musical) article notable enough for inclusion? Normally I'm quick to revert any edits that add information about high school or other minor productions to the articles, but I thought I'd better be safe and get a second opinion on this one, seeing as it does appear to be a bit more notable than most. — MearsMan talk 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that I just looked at the cited source, and while it does seem to support most of the information given, I saw no mention of this being the second high school production of the musical, which is probably the one thing that could make this production notable enough for inclusion.— MearsMan talk 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. A high school production could only be notable if it is a huge national event with very extensive major news coverage because of some really unique circumstance. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is about ready for a GA nom. Can someone please look at the article and give comments at the talk page and/or contribute to the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it for GA. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear everyone: What do you make of this? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to introduce myself and also commit myself to your effort! Please throw some work at me - I am ready and willing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treditor200 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok thank you so much for the welcome and tips! -- Treditor200 ( talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, but is there something more we can do about the non-notable replacement actors that are repeatedly being added to the article? The bulk of the last 50 edits is an IP adding a replacement and one of us later removing it, and frankly this is getting old quite quickly. The IP address keeps changing, so I don't know if a block would really work (or if we would even be granted one, for that matter), but does anyone else think a semi-protect might be appropriate? — MearsMan talk 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The Complete libretto link on Aida's page is dead. However after visiting the main page for that specific link, I found out it is temporarily closed. Should I delete the link or should we just monitor that link? Treditor200 ( talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. If a libretto exists on the internet (unless the libretto has been posted to the internet in violation of the copyright laws), I don't know of any reason why an External Link to it can't be listed at the bottom of the article. You just can't copy and paste the libretto into Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just clicked on it, and the link seems dead anyhow. What website was it? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Over the past week or so a couple articles related to Legally Blonde (musical) have been getting a lot of attention, most of which is coming from anonymous editors. Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists has seen numerous additions/removals of actors from the cast lists to the various productions, and while I've been doing my best to keep an eye on things I can barely tell at this point whether the edits are constructive or acts of vandalism (the entire article is poorly source). Additionally, Legally Blonde The Musical: The Search for Elle Woods has been getting plenty of attention, especially on Monday nights after new episodes of the show air. While there certainly seems to be less edit warring going on here, the page has still been the target of considerable vandalism, and things got so bad that I had to request semi-protection about a week back (protection was granted for three days). As I said, I've been doing the best I can with these articles, but they're poorly monitored and my current internet connection has been preventing me from keeping as careful a watch over them as I would like. If any of you would be willing to help me keep an eye on them, it would be greatly appreciated. — MearsMan talk 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a useful function in itself. If having them keeps the cruft out of the real article, I don't mind using Wikipedia's storage capabilities as a pacebo to placate the crufters. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly put them on my watchlist as I have been editing via the recent changes and random article link on the sidebar for quite a while now. Treditor200 ( talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have no problem watchlisting them myself. Always good to have an extra pair of eyes watching over. - Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out the legally blonde tour cast list and all of the names minus a few have been removed by a random IP. I checked through as many broadway sites and even tried google as much as I could stand to find a cast list. However, much to my surprise one has not been publicized yet. Has anyone seen an official cast list or does anyone know if coleen sexton has been confirmed for brooke wyndham? thanks! Treditor200 ( talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
67.189.232.190 has deleted the entire production section on the Legally Blonde (musical) page. I'm having trouble undoing it due to intermediate edits. Can anyone help with this? MarianKroy ( talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
Thanks for your help and the advice! MarianKroy ( talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The main article, Legally Blonde (musical), has been semi-protected. — Music Maker 5376 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit to our flagship article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Musical_theatre&diff=225292044&oldid=224468068 What do others think. Should it be reverted? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make a compromise edit, but the editor has added back a statement about musical films, which I don't think belongs in the musical theatre article's introduction. We may need to discus musical films somewhere in the article (we already refer to them), but I think this gives them too much prominence. Please take a look. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Mears Man is adding the category for West End Musicals to shows that had a West End run, even if the opened on Broadway (and, I assume vice versa). I thought that the category was supposed to be for debuts on Broadway/WE, not for subsequent productions? Just checking with you cat mavens. I have no opinion about it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about all the category chaos this past day or so! Before I started adding Category:London West End musicals I was wondering if it was for original runs or any show that played there, so I checked the category itself and the page says "Major musical theatre productions that have appeared in London West End theaters." Naturally, I took this to mean that the category was for any show that had played on the West End. If you want, I can try to go back through and remove that category from the pages I've added it to, although I would suggest changing the language on the category page itself. Also, while we're talking about it, does anyone object to Category:Off-Broadway musicals and Category:Broadway musicals being used on the same page? I know this one's a bit different, but I figured it would be best to ask now and save us trouble in the future. — MearsMan talk 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added cast lists, according to Broadway World, to 9 to 5 and A Tale of Two Cities. I also added show logos to each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treditor200 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Be careful to mention that the cast is announced or scheduled. Anything can happen between now and opening night. Look at Xanadu. The male lead was injured and replaced during previews. Also, Broadway productions can be cancelled prior to opening. So, it isn't the Broadway cast, it's just the announced cast, scheduled cast, slated cast, etc. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The descriptions of each episode are most likely copyvios. Of where, it's difficult to tell, but the same lines appear a few times throughout the Internet. If someone wants to attend to them, it would probably be a good idea. — Music Maker 5376 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the copy vio. But the article is so listy! All those lists about things that happen in each episode could be combined with the descriptions of the episodes in the boxes, IMO. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No boxes at all. Check it out! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Omigod! You're most welcome. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
One of our enthusiastic editors, Mizu, has removed the Principal roles table, which I know several editors had worked on pretty hard. There is a table like this in West Side Story, Wicked and a number of other musicals. I don't love them myself, but I think there should be a consensus before an editor just deletes a whole section. Mizu, would you start off the discussion, please? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you share the discussion that was had at that article with the other editors in the project? If enough people agree, we ought to clarify our article structure guidelines. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think lists are evil. I was of the persuasion that, if the main characters aren't all mentioned in the synopsis, then a character list is okay. On the other hand, I feel that if the main characters aren't mentioned in the synopsis, then the synopsis is likely faulty. On the other hand (yes, I have three hands), I also feel that there are some readers (remember them?) out there who don't want to read an entire synopsis, and a character list with descriptions allows them to get the basic idea of the show without reading the sometimes-quite-lengthy synopsises that can crop up 'round here. So, basically, I don't think they're always necessary, nor do I think they should be removed without discussion. (How's that for a completely out-of-character lack of opinion from MusicMaker?) — Music Maker 5376 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you're in the right, and I realise community consensus overrides anything I've learned elsewhere. Would any of you two kindly find a trout (or two, however many this stupid action by an experienced editor merits) to slap me with? :P In all seriousness, though. At this point I'll take the opportunity to revert my changes. I apologise for going against consensus as I've only been following the WikiProject closely for a month or so, therefore I'm not well-acquainted with discussions prior to my high activity. Many thanks, — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC).
No apologies necessary indeed: Your opinion is just as important as mine, but getting a consensus of opinion helps us all try to create a somewhat consistent style throughout the project. We have over 1,500 articles in the project (plus probably hundreds more untagged articles about people involved in musicals), and trying to get all the editors who work on them to do so with any degree of consistency is like trying to herd cats. But that's what a project is for - to try to develop consensus on style and to help each other deal with content issues. We'll never all agree on all the details, so I try to respect what other editors do, unless it disagrees with something that we have a consensus about. The good news is that articles are improving over time, and now we have some GA articles, a couple of FAs and are getting close to FA quality on a few others. As we create more high-quality articles, we will have more good examples of how things can be done. At the beginning of 2006, before Music Maker and a few other editors started working on musicals articles, the situation was pretty dire! And there was NO coverage at all of musicals prior to 1920. Now, we're cookin'! Happy editing! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, in Little Shop, Mizu has proposed deleting the section that shows the differences between the musical's plot and the 1960 film's plot. This is a reasonably well-written section, but it is not referenced, and Mizu interprets it as WP:OR. I feel confident that there must be some sources that discuss these differences, and so the section could be properly referenced, but I am going on an extended trip and cannot do the research. Can someone please address this? Thanks! In haste, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
- only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
- make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
<outdent> Actually, I like that idea a lot. It makes the process more natural, taking away the formality of that whole "nominate an article for CotM and then try to gain support for the nomination" scene. Not to mention that I think we'll be more willing to work on the collaboration this way, simply because the whole thing is less forced. Oh, and it cuts out the deadline, which is always a plus. I hate when it feels like WP has become yet another homework assignment for me.... But anyway, I don't see a problem with listing the current "pet project" under CC and switching it out every now and then as we move on to something new. It's a quick way for new editors to see what we've been working on, and I know I always get most fired-up about an article when I notice that a few other editors have taken an interest in it... I guess it helps knowing that I'm not going to be the only one working on the thing. — MearsMan talk 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please watch the page. I just reverted a re-write of the synopsis that was overly long, referred to production aspects and otherwise did not conform to our guidelines for synopses. Perhaps there is something worth salvaging in there. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I really have to say good job, SS. I've had LSoH watchlisted for a while now, but I'll keep an extra eye on it for now (and don't worry, I won't attack it!). — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Could use a blue pencil (and an infobox) if anyone is up to it.... — Music Maker 5376 05:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
...has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties can comment here. — Music Maker 5376 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings from the Opera Project. I see from the project page that:
* operettas - these form part of the WikiProject Opera, although if it is a grey area, there is nothing wrong with categorizing the work in both places
Perhaps we can clarify that the 'grey area' is specifically 'English-language' operettas, notably Broadway operettas? (See Category:English-language operettas.) German, French and Hungarian works don't prevent any problems - they come under Opera - and G&S has its own project.
IMO we should try not to overlap and double banner the articles because the style of editing - from the lead down to the references - is so different between the two projects. Thanks and best regards. -- Klein zach 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that this discussion should wait until Ssilvers ( talk · contribs) has returned from vacation. I know it's a month, but this question has been in the air for two years. It can wait another few weeks. — Music Maker 5376 04:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just back. With respect to the operetta articles that the opera project wishes to banner and edit under its guidelines, I think that is fine, and we can leave the articles under their banner. Kleinzach objects to having both banners on those articles, and there does not seem to be much benefit in arguing about it. With respect to English-language operettas, the opera project seems to have little interest in the bulk of those articles and to be happy for us to edit them under our guidlines. Kleinzach has placed our banner on many of them and removed the opera project banner. I have been editing most of these under the musicals format, so it makes sense for them to bear the musicals project banner. MusicMaker, if you think that I should update our "scope" along these lines, I'd be happy to give it a shot. Best regards. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Dan Knechtges choreographed Xanadu (nominated for a Tony for this) and the 25th Putnam County Spelling Bee, among other shows. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Dan+Knechtges%22&fulltext=Search Anyone feel like doing an article on him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the past few days, changes have been made to the synopsis of the musical. Can anyone verify whether the changes are correct? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been pages added for various songs from Starlight Express, all from one editor. I know I don't have an objective view on this show, So I'm asking you guys... does this seems excessive? These songs don't have much of a life outside the show, apart from the title song getting recorded quite often. I don't see the notability myself, and it seems most shows don't have individual articles for each number in the show. Also, quite a lot of the information is inaccurate, or accurate to just one production. Should I try to improve all these articles, or are they better deleted and any useful information included in the main article for Starlight Express? Belle pullman ( talk) 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless a song is notable outside of the musical, it should not have a separate article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what exactly happened to Category:Musicals based on television shows? It looks to me like it was supposed to be moved to something along the lines of Category:Musicals based on television programs based on this discussion, but instead it appears to have been outright deleted or moved to the wrong name (for some reason the discussion suggested that the category be moved to Films based on television programs, and my watchlist indicates that the category's talk page was moved to Category talk:Films adapted from a television series). Is anyone else able to make sense of what just happened, why it happened, or how to go about fixing it? — MearsMan talk 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently found out that Wikipedia has made a major change: No more linking of dates (unless the article is about the history of the date linked). See WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting. There is some kind of tool to de-link the dates and turn them into regular dates, like "April 5, 2008". This editor can explain how to delink dates in an article: User:Tony1. Gradually, the plan is to de-link dates in nearly all articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This Stephen Sondheim musical is now being produced in New York by the Public Theater under the name Road Show. Are New York productions (even off-Broadway) considered definitive? If so, does this article need to be renamed to Road Show (musical)? -- DrGaellon ( talk | contribs) 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't re-name it unless it moves to Broadway or runs for a year off-Broadway. I added a re-direct to the new name, and will disambiguate Road Show. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. I found myself reading the section above about those undesirable edits to the Musical theatre article, so had a look at the article. I amended and fleshed out slightly the ancient Greek section. I have some concerns about the Introduction too, but wanted to discuss them here before attempting any edit. There are three things that strike me about this:
Following your numbering system, some thoughts:
Any other opinions? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Integrated musical" is a commonly used term and is easily referenced. A quick google search brings up 31,700 references. See, e.g.: http://www.musicals101.com/stagecap.htm and http://www.jstor.org/pss/1225307 and this: ("integrated musical," is "a musical in which the book, lyrics, and score all grow from a central idea and all contribute to the story line"). Also, do you prefer "dramatic content" instead of "emotional content"? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Theatre is currently undergoing a portal peer review, and comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Theatre/archive1. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone notified you of this? No, I thought not. Johnbod ( talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This article about a major musical has no plot synopsis. Can someone add one, please? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made a proposal here to rename the "London West End musicals" category to "West End musicals", if you'd like to comment. DionysosProteus ( talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
May I bring to your attention an AfD for The Nervous Set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nervous Set. I should be grateful for input, one way or another, from this project, under the purview of which this article falls. Many thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Without wanting to reopen an old debate, Template:Broadway shows seems to have been added to a lot of musicals today... I'm inclined to remove it again, but I'm not sure. And should there be a corresponding one for the West End? Any comments? -- Dafyd ( talk) 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As we all agree, would someone kindly notify Bib, and anyone else who added it to articles, that we will be taking it down? Also, do we do an AfD, or is there some other process for deleting it? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I removedthe templates that Bib had put in over the last two days. Is there a way to figure out where else the template might still be? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed them all except for some redirects. Could someone take a look and see what ought to be done about them? here -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing those, since it was deleted. I hoped the template could be fixed, but yeah, it would be impossible to add every Broadway show ever, and a 'current shows' template does not work. Maybe next time I'll try to fix first, and add afterwards. Bib ( talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the lists of workshop casts and workshop songlist in this article, and an editor restored them. I think this is WP:Listcruft. This show has had an off-broadway run in 2008, and that is the most notable thing about it, unless it goes to B'way or the West End or has a long run somewhere else. So I focused the remaining info in the article on the off-Broadway version. I think that putting lists and lengthy information in about the workshop productions is not helpful to the readability of the article. What do others think? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
May I bring to your attention an AfD for Johnny Appleweed (a musical theatre production) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Appleweed. I should be grateful for input, one way or another, from this project, under the purview of which this article falls. Many thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please review this new article and try to fix it? (sigh) Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Should this be sent to AfD? If so, please put it up, and I will support. Also, someone keeps trying to add it to the List of rock musicals, but it seems, if anything, to be a rock opera, not a rock musical. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I initiated a discussion about the alleged source material for this musical at Talk: Evita. I hope some of you who are better musical theatre authorities than I am will take a look and add your comments, and maybe a more reliable reference than the one that was added. Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just made this article for the new musical. Any help appreciated. Mark E ( talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of creating an article on William Furst, who's probably best known (if at all) for his musical accompaniments to the original play versions of Madame Butterfly and The Girl of the Golden West. He's not a composer of musicals, so it would seem that he would not be a part of this project. But what project would he be a part of, or what categories can I place him into? Thanks. -- kosboot ( talk) 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add to our Article Structure guidelines that "Future productions should not be listed in infoboxes. Please wait until the production begins previews". Please vote below. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> Talk:Wicked (musical)#Broadway replacements. All comments greatly welcomed, even if they have been said a few thousand times before... </sigh> Happy‑ melon 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest renaming Cinderella (telefilms) to "Cinderella (1957 musical)". This would be consistant with the format used for Peter Pan (1954 musical). Cinderella was written for television, and although it was recorded on kinescope, it was not originally produced as a "telefilm" or Television movie. Comments? Thomprod ( talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"Impossible things are happening every day!" -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested a change to our article guidelines here. Please comment. Thomprod ( talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A few of us have been working on Coward and his play articles (there are many!). Anyone want to jump in and help out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that WP:WPMT has a page you can link to that shows recent updates to articles in the project. Even though I've tried to figure out how to do that, I can't. Can someone tell me or point to where there's an explanation? Thanks! -- kosboot ( talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, God! Please! No more categories! :-) -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Recently I just obtained a picture of her. I would not mind uploading it to Wikipedia. I know about licensing things, and got no problem with it as I took the picture myself. Now, the problem is that it is rather informal (at least in my opinion). If it is looking formal, I normally upload it without any question, but for this one, I would not bother uploading it just yet. I want to know the criteria for photos in Wikipedia before uploading. w_tanoto ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just restored this. Mind you, the article on chorus line isn't really very good (and Chorus girl redirects to it), but I think it's still a highly useful illustration of the subject, and, coming from 1900, provides a nice contrast to the modern image also used. (Surely we could say a fair bit more about chorus lines and chorus girls - start with things like this, mention Florodora and Gaiety Girls, and the Stage door Johnnys...) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Er, notable? I think not. See also Kenneth L. Ton, and the "footnotes" to that. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only does this article barely meet Wikipedia criteria, but I believe it may have been copied verbatim from another source. Hopefully someone involved with the musical theatre project will clean it up. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs some serious TLC I went on to find some info on the show and was faced with an article that had 3 plotlists and 5 song lists. I don't know the show very well so i'll leave it to someone who does. Mark E ( talk) 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but all these many lists and cast lists do not ALL belong in the article. See WP:NOT. If you wrote a book about Chess, you could list all this stuff, but WP is not about lists. You need to decide what is notable and keep only that. I began the process, streamlining out the obviously non-notable information, but there should probably be only two cast lists, including the final version, and the other production descriptions should describe in narrative paragraphs the notable changes from production to production. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I agree with all that, and I left in the full lists for several of the productions; but I turned the lists in some productions into narrative sentences listing only the notable names. Our guidlines call for a list of principal cast for the major original productions of musicals. What I and Mark are objecting to above was the multiple lists of casts for so many productions, including merely concert productions, as well as repeated plot summaries and song lists. I think the article is still a bit too listy, and that, for example, instead of re-listing full lists of musical numbers, there should be a narrative descriptions of the major changes from production-to-production. The reason for turning the information into narrative format is readability. WP articles should be readable, not a technical manual. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We have nominated this article for FA. Feel free to comment at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Help! Our project banner has gotten out of control, displaying a long task list. Can someone please remove the task list from our banner? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, it seems to be working. Sorry! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is about ready to be nominated at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments on the article (at the article's talk page), over the next week or so, before we nominate it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just prodded Sarah Hunt, and wanted to let you all know. I think she would fit in this category, but mainly I wanted to give a heads up in case anyone disagrees with me. tedder ( talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Yellowdesk is removing the future play template from articles because he thinks it's superfluous. If you disagree please post a comment on his talk page in the section I started. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new to the project as of today, and I think that we should come up with some sort of consistent way of including Awards and Nominations for shows. I've been surfing around the shows that won/were nominated last night at the Tony's and the inconsistency between articles is glaring and gross. I don't really care what the system ought to be, but it needs to be done. BirdDogg34 ( talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The layout of this article is a mess and makes it very difficult to read. I was going to fix it but I didn't want to upset anyone. If nobody objects I will fix it. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Are the changes by User:TheRedPenOfDoom vandalism? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of this show? I know nothing about it, but apparently it's a musical, judging by its inclusion in the "2006 musicals" category and our project's banner on the article's talk page. Anyway, the article is in rather poor shape and could use some serious attention. To be entirely honest I'm not even sure if it meets the notability requirements for inclusion, so it might need to be removed outright. I thought I'd drop a message here in case someone wanted to try their hand at it. — MearsMan talk 09:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor proposes to delete references to Pippin (musical), Wicked and Bat Boy from this article. I have seen all of these musicals and they seem like Rock musicals to me, but can anyone with add references? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rock_musical#Rock_musical_or_musical_with_rock_influences.3F Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
From the original Pippin review: "It is a commonplace [sic]set to rock music, and I must say I found most of the music somewhat characterless...It is nevertheless consistently tuneful and contains a few rock ballads that could prove memorable." Source: Clive Barnes, The New York Times, October 24, 1972, page 37.
Wicked reviews: Brantley (New York Times, 10/31/03): "swirling pop-eretta score"; Elysa Gardner (USA Today, 10/30/03): "haunting new songs...Add in tunes that you can actually leave the theater humming..."; Roma Torre (NY1, 10/31/03): "Schwartz...has written some lovely music, particularly his ballads for the witches, but the score is uneven and the beautiful melodies that marked his earlier works are disappointingly absent here."; Christopher Isherwood, (Daily Variety, 10/31/03): "jaunty vaudevillian number...the show's score features far too many competent but bland anthems written in an easy-listening Broadway pop mode." ; Clive Barnes (New York Post, 10/31/03): "Steven Schwartz's oppressive music and banal, if sometimes pretentiously amusing, lyrics...Schwartz...has produced the kind of bland, generic Broadway music where you tend to hear the orchestration (Alex Lacamoire, Stephen Oremus and James Lynn Abbott) before you notice the tune."
There are many many more, out of time now. But, I see nothing so far that would be a good source for Wicked being considered a rock musical. JeanColumbia ( talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
One more:
Is this a rock musical? Charles Isherwood (New York Times, February 9, 2007) wrote: "boasts an infectious, bouncy Latin-pop score...Some of the more earnest anthems, effective as they are, run in grooves derived equally from Broadway formulas and the new power-pop idioms employed with such exhausting frequency on “American Idol.”
I did not see the show. JeanColumbia ( talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the term is that it's anachronistic. In 1968, a "rock" musical was something notable since the majority of musicals did not have rock elements. In 2009, almost every new musical is in some way a rock musical, whether it chooses to call itself that or not. (I feel if a musical chooses to call itself that, it's trying to evoke a response from those who are nostalgic about rock.). So I'm not sure whether it's a wise thing to keep this category. --
kosboot (
talk)
21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Grease and Godspell are listed as examples of Rock Musicals here. The author, John Kenrick, is the Managing Director of the website Musicals101.com as well as teaching musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School and at Marymount Manhattan College. I think these shows' inclusion on his list is a good reference and have added it to the article. -- Thomprod ( talk) 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw Wicked three times and the last thing I would call it is a rock musical. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have sources handy to support my claims, but I'm relatively familiar with the cast recording of Bat Boy and I would definitely classify the show as a rock musical. On the other hand, I've seen Wicked and I never would have thought to apply the term "rock musical" to it. I don't know enough about Pippin or In the Heights to say anything either way. — MearsMan talk 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at [4] and cast your vote. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Have made an article for this new musical. Opens on July 16th so hopefully someone will post a plot summary.
I note that the Wiki Opera Project allows one to navigate from year to year without having to perform a search. (See the category 1894 operas for example.) I don't see how it's done, but might the Wiki Musical Theatre Project want to consider that? -- kosboot ( talk) 21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I created an article about Santa Maria (musical), which had music and lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein I. I pointed out that the program says "a romantic opera." So a non-member of this group User:Singingdaisies has tried to switch it to Santa Maria (opera) because the work is "verifiably" an opera (I switched it back). I tried to convince this person that most musicals of the time (1890s) were called operas and not musicals, but this person disagrees with me. I intend to find more source material to prove it's a musical, but if any of you can help me sway this person, it would be appreciated: Talk:Santa Maria (musical) -- kosboot ( talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Sarah Brightman/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can get some additional feedback re: listing current productions in West End theatre at Talk:West End theatre. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 13:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting. -- The Transhumanist 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we're largely in agreement here. In my opinion the outline articles often appear cluttered and are difficult to navigate or use in any reasonable fashion. I fail to see how the Musical Theatre project could benefit from such an outline, especially since the information is already covered just as well (if not better) elsewhere, as pointed out in the previous comments. — MearsMan talk 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A minor concern that I'm not sure has been discussed: in the "Awards" section, we focus mainly on production-specific awards. Does this include revivals? Meaning, can we include Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical in the infobox? — Music Maker 5376
Here is a bit on the background of La Cage-I don't know if you want to use it, it's not well-documented. The original musical was titled "The Queen of Basin Street"; here is the quote from the demo recording site: "Musical based on LA CAGE AUX FOLLES to be set in New Orleans and to be directed by Mike Nichols and choreographed by Tommy Tune. It fell apart and Jerry Herman ended up writing the score for LA CAGE AUX FOLLES". Composer Maury Yeston, book by Jay Presson Allen. Here:[ [5]].
There is a good interview in the New York Times, "How Stars of 'La Cage' Grew Into Their Roles", Aug 24, 1983, with Hearn & Barry, about their feelings about playing these roles (so very early 80s. JeanColumbia ( talk) 11:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Music Maker and Jean Columbia! I will certainly take a look at that and im sure my college library will have the Herman Biography when I go back next month. I went to my local library today but couldnt find anything really, although I did find some nice holiday reading (Elaine Paige's Autobiography!). Thanks again! Mark E ( talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) P.s. i also think its definitely time i learn how to cite references properly! can't get away with it forever :P. Mark E ( talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Mark E nominated the article Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists for deletion. I wanted to note that there are other cast list articles that you might want to consider the AFD process for: Billy Elliot the Musical casts; List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members; List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts (nominated for deletion on June 20, 2007, result:Keep, no consensus). I think if the Legally Blonde cast list article is deleted, there is a case for deleting the others. JeanColumbia ( talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
For another example of where I think a table could be used to organise information, see The Drowsy Chaperone. The article is not too bad until the cast lists and especially the hidious rewards list, this could be much more nicely organised. It is also incomplete, with Olivier Award nominations not mentioned. Or (and I don't know what the opinion is on this), make it like I have done the productions of La Cage aux Folles (musical) and also how Hair (musical) displays the casting/award information in prose. I actually used the format of Hair to revamp the La Cage productions section. Mark E ( talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If the hope is to get Hair (musical) to featured article status (which im sure it will. The article is outstanding), then I would be inclined to go with how the information is represented in that article. No awards tables, no cast lists and just expanded sections on each of the productions (ala my recent edits to La Cage aux Folles (musical). Mark E ( talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on this article the past few days and would maybe like some informal feedback? I have worked mainly on the productions section although hope to work on the plot summary to add in the songs and incorporate character information so I can take out the dreaded character list. Is there anything else you can think of maybe adding into the article? I'd like to think it could be of GA standard someday. Mark E ( talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In film articles, the plot synopsis comes after the opening. This makes sense because the first thing most people want to know is what the film is about. But I notice in articles about musicals, the plot synopsis usually comes later in the article, after the section about the different productions, which doesn't make sense to me. In most articles, I'll read that "John Smith" played "Lead Male Character" before I know who "Lead Male Character" is. If I have to scroll down to find out, then the article isn't very reader friendly. I think most people want to know who "Lead Male Character" is and what happens to him in the plot BEFORE they know who played him. Can someone justify why the plot synopsis comes so late in the article instead of just saying because that's the way it's supposed to be done? I just want to say that from the POV of someone who is looking for information, the information is coming in the wrong order. 172.134.81.64 ( talk) 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
And, the nice thing about putting the synopsis before the production info is that it doesn't require a vote--it's already in your article structure guidelines. All you need to do is to decide to implement what your established guidelines are. JeanColumbia ( talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be some discussion of background (genesis) of the show before the synopsis, but I agree that the productions section can go later. Nevertheless, I think it is just as sensible to do it as shown in Hair (musical). It's in the Table of Contents - it's easy enough to skip there if all you want is plot. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I find the film articles jarring. I still think that it makes sense to see the history/development section before the plot synopsis. Hey, anonymous users who are contributing to this discussion, if you are interested in musicals articles, I suggest that you register an account and join WP:MUSICALS. I wonder whether even film articles that have been promoted to FA just jump in with the synopsis section. Does anyone know? All the WP:G&S articles that have been promoted to FA start with history/background. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
MM: Thanks for the research on the film FAs. I don't think that your statement is a fair accusation, however. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean that your reasons are about "readability", while mine are "merely aesthetic". I think it is logical, and contributes to readability, that a history/background of what happened to create the show and bring it to a full production should go before the description of the show itself, including the plot summary. Remember, the WP:LEAD should contain a very brief plot as part of the overview of the article. Your argument above that a short article has most of its info in the lead is specious: our goal is to expand all of our articles to contain full information as described in our article structure guidelines. If a new consensus of members of the project disagree, OK, but in the past most members of the project agreed with me, as reflected in our guidelines and the current structure of most of our articles. Now it seems that several of the editors who were around when we designed the guidelines (mostly in 2006) are inactive here. But instead of you, me and an anonymous editor continuing to reiterate our opinions, can we get some opinions from other members of the committee? I am happy to yield to a consensus of editors, if there is a consensus, to change our guidelines even though I do not personally agree with it. I would note, that as described above, our articles are now mostly consistent with the order described in our guidelines, so if we decide to change it, that is going to be a lot of work with little gain. Instead, I would propose that if we do have some more active editors than we have had over the past two years, that we start a project to improve our many stubs - I estimate that we have over 500 articles with no plot summaries (or a perfunctory plot summary). All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous editors are entitled to opinions and just because they don't have user names or aren't "members of the committee" or "members of the project" doesn't mean they aren't valid. I know exactly what MusicMaker5376 means by "readability" - if you're reading comments about characters or plot details that haven't been described yet because the production section comes before the synopsis, then the article isn't "readable". 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This version of
Hair (musical) moves the synopsis directly after the history, now before the section on productions instead of after it.
To me, it seems like, now, it would make more sense to have the productions all in one section, toward the end. Let the synopsis flow into themes, etc., then discuss the productions
like this, with perhaps the critical reception section in with the productions. Thoughts? —
Music
Maker
5376
21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to start another discusson in the midst of the other one, but I just noticed that an editor renamed the article Title of Show and changed all occurances of [title of show] to Title of Show (except one in the lede) in this edit, citing WP:MOSTM for the change. It was my understanding that the show's actual title was [title of show] (lowercase with brackets), based on the official website, IBDB, Playbill etc. If this were one of those situations where I'd seen the show's title rendered multiple ways I wouldn't question it, but I've honestly never seen it referred to as anything other than [title of show].
Apparently, however, there's a policy in place stating that the title should be rendered as Title of Show on Wikipedia "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." I haven't come across a situation like this before, and I'm honestly not sure which way is correct anymore, so I thought I'd ask for some of your thoughts on the matter. — MearsMan talk 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
See further examples: the film AdULTHOOD - correctly styled as Adulthood, KiDULTHOOD - correctly styled as Kidulthood. There are literally hundreds of films that are "styled" with the titles in ALL CAPS but this is not adopted in wikipedia, so why should lowercase lettering and purely decorative punctuation marks need to be used for every instance of the title? Explain why it is so important that the stylistic form of the title is used throughout, rather than mentioned in the lead only? Just because WP:MOSTM is "only" a guideline, does not mean that you can pick and choose when to abide by it and when to ignore it. You need to have pretty sound reasons to do so. I have seen no logical reason presented thus far. The argument that it's the "official name" or whatever doesn't stick. It is the way the title is styled. The actual name does not change. Please explain how [title of show] is pronounced any differently to Title of Show... Nouse4aname ( talk)
The problem with WP:MOSTM is that it mixes trademarks with titles, and they're two completely different things. And Nouse4name, every example you cited is not "correctly" styled, it's styled according to some bizarre Wikipedia guideline that thinks it's OK to take a writer's work and change it. I wonder how these writers would feel about that. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nouse4aname, I think part of the issue stems from your lack of familiarity with the show in question. [title of show] isn't rendered as such just to look spiffy or draw attention to itself: it is to signify that, in essence, the show itself has no title. [title of show] documents its own creation, its own existence. It's a musical about the creation of a musical about the creation of a musical ad nauseam. The people who wrote the musical star in the show as themselves, recreating the creation process of the production. The show contains conversations about what the show should be about, and there are songs about writing songs. [title of show] isn't so much an actual title as it is a placeholder for the title of a show that remains untitled. To wrongly change the name to Title of Show is to assign the show a proper title, which I find to be a gross misrepresentation of the playwright’s original intentions. — MearsMan talk 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of infoboxes are overlinked or incorrectly linked. A name should be linked once. If the person wrote the book, lyrics, and music, his or her name shouldn't be linked three times. If a show was revived on Broadway five times, Broadway shouldn't be linked for every revival that's listed. Also, the year of a production shouldn't be linked just to the year. If you think about it, the reason links exist is to let you get more information related to the subject of the article. Most article links now bring you to an article about that year. The correct link should be 2008, which will bring you to 2008 in theatre instead of just the year 2008. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do the years need to be linked at all? It all seems like overlinking to me. Also, when the same person writes two or three of book, lyrics and music, why write thier names three times? In some infoboxes, the team of writers all have their names listed three times. Is there a way to fix the template so that we could have the option to say, "Book, lyrics and music by Rupert Holmes", for example? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion? If a person is adding new information to an old article, don't stop there, look to see if anything needs fixing, like incorrect or duplicate links or anything else covered by guidelines changes. It really won't take that long to clean up an article. LargoLarry ( talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does the list of stage appearances include the dates of the entire run of the show whether or not she was in it for the entire run?
It doesn't make sense to say
I think the article should list only the dates she was in it or no dates at all. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Larry, I agree with you. The dates that she played the characters should be the ones noted in her article. However, it would be better to convert the list to prose paragraphs, explaining how each stage appearance fit into her career as a whole. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally, for stage works, I would describe the actor's major appearances in prose and not have a list. If there is any important information in the list that is not already described in the prose, it should be added to the appropriate prose paragraphs, and then I'd say the list can be removed. I can understand why people list filmographies, I guess. But I'd put the filmography in two colums to reduce white space. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm just popping in randomly here. I noticed that a couple musicals didn't have italicized titles. For example, none of the articles in this category are italicized. What is the correct behavior? These articles have italics in the lead (Shear Madness is...), so why not in the header? She these articles be using {{ italic title}}? Timneu22 ( talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems like "make-work" to me, and MM's experiment with the title of Hair (musical) is a good illustration of how unnecessary it is. If we are ready to resume organized work on the project, I would suggest, instead, a project either to improve stubs or to upgrade an "article of the month". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The italics thing seems like "make-work" to me, and MM's experiment with the title of Hair (musical) is a good illustration of how unnecessary it is. If we are ready to resume organized work on the project, I would suggest, instead, a project either to improve stubs or to upgrade an "article of the month". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A great example of this is By the Beautiful Sea, which Jean recently improved (great work, as always, Jean!). Generally, to get a stub up to Start class, we will need to add a plot synopsis and a couple of refs. Let me know when you want to get started, Jean, and I'll join in. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct to assume a film version of a musical shouldn't be listed as a production in the infobox? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Should this article be deleted? If not, can someone please... er... fix it? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The following comment was left at the talk page of the article on Smokey Joe's Cafe ( Talk:Smokey_Joe's_Cafe):
"Critical reception"
"Articles about musicals and plays are supposed to be about the works in general so critical reception should be limited to comments about the script and score and shouldn't include references to performances in specific productions."
Would you members of the project kindly add this to your instructions for this item (Critical reception under Response), (1) because I will forget it; (2) because the instructions are quite open as they stand now and subject to interpretation; (3) it is a waste of time, effort, and potentially really hurts the key-board to type in all that useless information; and (4) everyone needs to know this important instruction. Thanks, (NOW I am wikibreaking!) JeanColumbia ( talk) 20:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, that is wrong. While critical response section should certainly describe the critics' reaction to the script and score, they can also comment on the critics' reactions to particular major productions. I completely disagree with the comment at Smokey Joe's and I'm going to say so. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, with respect to specific comments in reviews about specific actors that do not much affect the overall review of the production. However, if a review describes how the West End production was well directed, acted and/or designed, and another review describes how the Broadway production was disappointing, that is important information about the musical and its major productions. There is no other article where this information will be found. Anonymous editors, please see WP:WHY: If you register an address, we will be able to see that you are not the person who has vandalized so many articles using your IP address. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? You can say, "The original production was panned by the critics. For example, Clive Barnes wrote [giving examples].[ref] However, the revival at the Goodspeed Opera House in 1992 received raves [giving examples]. It ran for 17 years and was the second-most successful U.S. regional revival in history.[ref] However, subsequent regional revivals have fared poorly, closing quickly and losing massive amounts of money.[refs]. The 2009 West End revival, however, has been a hit at the box office, pulling in over 2 million pounds per week since opening.[ref]" And so forth. That way, you can see in one place, and easily compare, how different productions of the show did. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I would call these sections "Reception" rather than "Critical reception", becuase they should discuss the critical AND audience reactions, as well as financial success or failure. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
[left]The performances in major productions of a musical are important to the article about the musical. If critics said so, then it is important to note that Mary Martin's performance in The Sound of Music contributed to its success. However, I agree that the reception discussion should focus on the aspects of the reviews that are most important to understanding how the musical itself was received. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I read Wikipedia on a regular basis and I edit it once in awhile. My main interests are film and theatre so I read those articles most. Since I'm not a member of this project maybe my POV is a little more objective. This was a very interesting discussion and it's a shame some people have to get nasty instead of just realizing everyone is entitled to an opinion. I understand what 209.247.22.164 is saying and it's unfortunate some people are so quick to think someone without a name isn't worth listening to. I think some people get so obsessed with Wikipedia they're not able to see all sides of an argument. The funny thing is years from now we'll be dead and gone and a new generation will be editing Wikipedia according to different guidelines they come up with. Everyone should stop being so serious and nobody should think he or she is better than anyone else. Have fun! LargoLarry ( talk) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)