Musical Theatre Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
||
I think I brought this up last year, but we didn't get very far with it. There's no reason why we can't include a couple of music samples, and, since these are articles about musicals, we probably should. I think it would be necessary to set down some guidelines -- 30-second clips of the four or five main songs AT THE MOST. With inline sampling, we could add them at the appropriate points in the synopsis. — Music Maker 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added that Template:Listen or Template:Audio should be used for playing clips, but I wonder whether we should put together our own little player template - these are rather generic. I'll have a look at what I can do and put something together, see how well it works. - Dafyd 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I revised the page, removing anything that sounded slightly opinionated. The other major edits involved reorganizing the lead section -- it was a little garbled. I wouldn't be opposed to really setting in stone how the lead section should be -- I think they should all be exactly the same for every article. I also added something along the lines of "multiple song lists should be avoided" (in the case of a show having several different incarnations with different music. Jekyll and Hyde comes to mind....). I'm pretty sure that's something we can all get behind. — Music Maker 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I may have jumped the gun a little on archiving, but since we decided to remove the warning template, I figured we could get rid of the lengthy discussions. If there was anything that still needed to be covered, feel free to bring it up again, here. — Music Maker 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little stumped by some of the content of Evita (musical). I know what I think should happen, but it doesn't quite fit with the model structure, and I think the same scenario may come up elsewhere, so I wanted to check...
Evita changed considerably between the original concept album, the 1978 West End/Broadway productions, the 1996 film, and the 2006 West End revival. The article currently has a fairly hefty, pretty well written section describing these changes, which I certainly don't want to lose. My instinct would be to put them in the "History" section, but that means referring in detail to songs and scenes that have not yet been introduced to the article (which is, in standard essay style, very bad). I think I'll leave them in an "Evolution of the musical" section, after the synopsis... but I wanted to see if anyone else had any ideas...? - Dafyd 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Having just waded through the insane glurge-fests that are
Avenue Q and
Wicked (musical), I propose that this paragraph be added to the section on adaptations or versions:
"This section should highlight the major changes made to the musical in adapting it to a new production. The article should not include such logical changes as changes of euphemism, minor line changes, minor language usage changes, or any other feature that would necessarily be changed for intelligibility in a new venue, nor should this section include minor changes made mainly in the interest of time. The section should discuss significant plot changes, cuts of entire songs, the composition of new songs not previously included in the show (not reprises), change in lyrics of entire verses, or main character revisions (name, gender, cut from the show entirely, etc.). A blow-by-blow detail of the changes made from production to production should be avoided."
Thoughts? —
Music
Maker
06:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that shorter is better. We will be most effective if we keep our instructions short and snappy, and above all, clear: What do you mean by a "change of euphemism?" I also think the above paragraph is repetitive. I support your idea, but I think we can write what you mean above in a shorter, clearer paragraph without repeating the same thing in several different ways. I suggest:
-- Ssilvers 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Opinions welcome. -- Ssilvers 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I added that to the article stucture. I think it's something that's generally agreed upon, but if I'm being obtuse, we can discuss it. — Music Maker 5376 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As we discussed on the main talk page, I have added this guideline:
Feel free to tweak/revise. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently added the category "musical film" to the article Little Shop of Horrors (musical) in accordance with the project guideline here. In conversation with Ssilvers, it was discussed that we usually only add that category to the musical article if the film does not have its own article. In this case, there is an article for the film already, and I agree it makes more sense to add the category there. Our guideline (as written) doesn't cover that option, though, for the musical article. Perhaps we should say, "If the musical was made into a musical film, and there is not already a separate article about the film, paste the text [[Category:Musical films]] into the musical article". Thomprod ( talk) 01:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need be quite so demeaning in the exact wording, but the principle of putting the category on the page that contains the actual content about the film is extremely sensible. Happy‑ melon 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added "and there is not already a separate article about the film," to the guideline. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Note that our project's main page, we are still asking for people to create film articles for the film versions of:
-- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Sounds all good. But I wonder: Category:musical films is used for musicals made into films. What about film musicals which are not based on stage material? Is it worth bringing that out as a distinction to those based on books? -- kosboot ( talk) 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Musical films are outside the scope of this project. They fall within the scope of the film project. But I think that all musical films should go in the category, whether they are based on musicals or not. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Category:musical films should be added to musical pages if their is no article for the film based on that musical. However, I also agree that we should ideally be moving toward having seperate film articles for all film versions of stage musicals. I have not been a good contributer lately :( but I will try to make more edits in the future. New Year's Resolution! Returning to the topic at hand, Category:musical films does imply that the only criterion for being in the category is that the film in question is a musical, regardless of its source material. Sslivers is correct in saying all musical films should be in the category under its current title. It would be nice to have some way of distinguishing between films based on stage musicals and original musical films, but that might overcomplicate the category system and infringe on the film project's turf. MarianKroy ( talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year, everyone. I added this to the Introduction/infobox guideline. I believe that it is consistent with the practice we have been carrying out in the articles. "The productions in the infobox should include the original production, the major productions in New York and/or London and U.S. or UK national tours. Other productions can be indicated by the catchall phrase "International productions" or "Major regional productions". Future productions should not be included in the infobox, but only added after the production opens." Please let me know if there is disagreement. This keeps the infoboxes from becoming long lists of productions. If a production is material, it should be described in the body of the article, rather than listed in the infobox. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone updated the Trivia template, and I tweaked the introductory language. Feel free to modify or discuss. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked the Reception section in our Article Structure guidelines. I think we all agree that critical reception is required, not optional, and that box office or sales success should be mentioned if the information is available, right? If not, please discuss. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I think these guidelines would benefit from a clearer description of which awards are appropriate for inclusion in the Awards section. Perhaps the Template:Infobox musical guidelines could be examined in conjunction with this. Given notability guidelines, I think it's important that only major awards be listed. These would definitely include, for Broadway, the Tonys and Drama Desk; for Off-Broadway, the Obies; for the U.S., the Pulitzer Prize, which has been won by several musicals; for the West End, the Oliviers and, if there's second London award of high merit, it should be included too (I'm not sure how significant the ones I've been able to find, the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award are).
As far as international productions go, apparently there are awards given in Australia (the Helpmann Awards) and Toronto (the Dora Mavor Moore Award), but again, I'm not sure how important they are considered to be. I think in France the Molière Award appears to be the most important theatre award; in Germany, it looks like the Nestroy Awards and Faust Awards are pretty important, but since most of the information about them is in German, it's hard for me to tell. MarianWilde ( talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not looking at this post for awhile! Thanks for commenting, TimRiley. Assuming the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award are of equal merit, I think we can go ahead with the 3 British theatre awards listed above. I'm not sure what to do about national awards outside the U.S. and Canada, but since, as SSilvers said, the main issue appears to be preventing the inclusion of awards of dubious merit given to American productions, we could formulate a general guideline (covering all nations) saying that only major awards are to be listed and, for musicals performed in the U.S., these are limited to the Tonys, Drama Desk, Obies, and Pulitzer; and, for musicals performed in Britain, these are limited to the Oliviers, Evening Standard, and Critics' Circle. MarianWilde ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added a couple sentences to the "Awards" section according to my suggestion in my previous post. See [1]. MarianWilde ( talk) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a new wiki contributor, and still trying to learn the intricacies of editing as well as follow all the guidelines -- so I have 2 questions for the group so I can be helpful. First, it looks like most musicals have an External Link to IBDB (and we even have a Template to make that easy to do!). Is the goal that we want every article about a Broadway Musical to have such an External Link? Second, I see that we have an agreed upon article structure. Is the goal of the structure that articles should contain those elements in the order presented in the structure, or just contain the elements, regardless of sequencing. (In the words, if the list of musical numbers comes after the list of productions, does it matter, or should it be re-arranged?) MPW NYC ( talk) 12:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[Left] MPW, I would say that once an article has a reasonable introduction containing information about the creators, director, choreographer and original cast, as well as when and where the musical premiered and how long it ran, list of musical numbers and synopsis that summarizes the whole plot, it is probably a start-class article, rather than a stub. Wang (musical), for example does not have a full-blown plot summary, so I agree that it is still a stub. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, again, Ssilvers. This is very helpful. So two follow-up questions. Can you look at Ankles Aweigh -- I added the song list. It already has the plot (though it's short and listed in the "Overview" section, not a "Synopsis" section. It looks like everything else you mention is there. Do you think it's ready to upgrade from Stub to Start? And if you agree, how does the status of an article get changed? MPW NYC ( talk) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
[Left]I fixed my sloppy references, and removed your notations that they needed page numbers. Thanks for this advice. I don't think I've thought about proper footnoting since college! MPW NYC ( talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a help section that explains the structure of a table? The Awards table for Sugar Babies has formatting errors and would love to fix it (the year column breaks at the wrong row), but my attempts to do so haven't worked. I'm sure there's a help section somewhere, but haven't found it yet. MPW NYC ( talk) 12:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on the article All American, adding some information and references, and re-organizing the original content to fit our article structure. Let me know if you think I did it well, and whether you think this article can be upgraded from WP:START status or not? If so, what is the "process" for doing so? MPW NYC ( talk) 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Nitpick: Looking at a list of several projects' similar guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Names and orders for section headings, this page here is the only one not following WP:TITLEFORMAT by using a capital "S"; it really ought to be WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article structure. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Musical Theatre Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
||
I think I brought this up last year, but we didn't get very far with it. There's no reason why we can't include a couple of music samples, and, since these are articles about musicals, we probably should. I think it would be necessary to set down some guidelines -- 30-second clips of the four or five main songs AT THE MOST. With inline sampling, we could add them at the appropriate points in the synopsis. — Music Maker 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added that Template:Listen or Template:Audio should be used for playing clips, but I wonder whether we should put together our own little player template - these are rather generic. I'll have a look at what I can do and put something together, see how well it works. - Dafyd 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I revised the page, removing anything that sounded slightly opinionated. The other major edits involved reorganizing the lead section -- it was a little garbled. I wouldn't be opposed to really setting in stone how the lead section should be -- I think they should all be exactly the same for every article. I also added something along the lines of "multiple song lists should be avoided" (in the case of a show having several different incarnations with different music. Jekyll and Hyde comes to mind....). I'm pretty sure that's something we can all get behind. — Music Maker 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I may have jumped the gun a little on archiving, but since we decided to remove the warning template, I figured we could get rid of the lengthy discussions. If there was anything that still needed to be covered, feel free to bring it up again, here. — Music Maker 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little stumped by some of the content of Evita (musical). I know what I think should happen, but it doesn't quite fit with the model structure, and I think the same scenario may come up elsewhere, so I wanted to check...
Evita changed considerably between the original concept album, the 1978 West End/Broadway productions, the 1996 film, and the 2006 West End revival. The article currently has a fairly hefty, pretty well written section describing these changes, which I certainly don't want to lose. My instinct would be to put them in the "History" section, but that means referring in detail to songs and scenes that have not yet been introduced to the article (which is, in standard essay style, very bad). I think I'll leave them in an "Evolution of the musical" section, after the synopsis... but I wanted to see if anyone else had any ideas...? - Dafyd 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Having just waded through the insane glurge-fests that are
Avenue Q and
Wicked (musical), I propose that this paragraph be added to the section on adaptations or versions:
"This section should highlight the major changes made to the musical in adapting it to a new production. The article should not include such logical changes as changes of euphemism, minor line changes, minor language usage changes, or any other feature that would necessarily be changed for intelligibility in a new venue, nor should this section include minor changes made mainly in the interest of time. The section should discuss significant plot changes, cuts of entire songs, the composition of new songs not previously included in the show (not reprises), change in lyrics of entire verses, or main character revisions (name, gender, cut from the show entirely, etc.). A blow-by-blow detail of the changes made from production to production should be avoided."
Thoughts? —
Music
Maker
06:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that shorter is better. We will be most effective if we keep our instructions short and snappy, and above all, clear: What do you mean by a "change of euphemism?" I also think the above paragraph is repetitive. I support your idea, but I think we can write what you mean above in a shorter, clearer paragraph without repeating the same thing in several different ways. I suggest:
-- Ssilvers 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Opinions welcome. -- Ssilvers 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I added that to the article stucture. I think it's something that's generally agreed upon, but if I'm being obtuse, we can discuss it. — Music Maker 5376 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As we discussed on the main talk page, I have added this guideline:
Feel free to tweak/revise. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently added the category "musical film" to the article Little Shop of Horrors (musical) in accordance with the project guideline here. In conversation with Ssilvers, it was discussed that we usually only add that category to the musical article if the film does not have its own article. In this case, there is an article for the film already, and I agree it makes more sense to add the category there. Our guideline (as written) doesn't cover that option, though, for the musical article. Perhaps we should say, "If the musical was made into a musical film, and there is not already a separate article about the film, paste the text [[Category:Musical films]] into the musical article". Thomprod ( talk) 01:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need be quite so demeaning in the exact wording, but the principle of putting the category on the page that contains the actual content about the film is extremely sensible. Happy‑ melon 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added "and there is not already a separate article about the film," to the guideline. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Note that our project's main page, we are still asking for people to create film articles for the film versions of:
-- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Sounds all good. But I wonder: Category:musical films is used for musicals made into films. What about film musicals which are not based on stage material? Is it worth bringing that out as a distinction to those based on books? -- kosboot ( talk) 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Musical films are outside the scope of this project. They fall within the scope of the film project. But I think that all musical films should go in the category, whether they are based on musicals or not. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Category:musical films should be added to musical pages if their is no article for the film based on that musical. However, I also agree that we should ideally be moving toward having seperate film articles for all film versions of stage musicals. I have not been a good contributer lately :( but I will try to make more edits in the future. New Year's Resolution! Returning to the topic at hand, Category:musical films does imply that the only criterion for being in the category is that the film in question is a musical, regardless of its source material. Sslivers is correct in saying all musical films should be in the category under its current title. It would be nice to have some way of distinguishing between films based on stage musicals and original musical films, but that might overcomplicate the category system and infringe on the film project's turf. MarianKroy ( talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year, everyone. I added this to the Introduction/infobox guideline. I believe that it is consistent with the practice we have been carrying out in the articles. "The productions in the infobox should include the original production, the major productions in New York and/or London and U.S. or UK national tours. Other productions can be indicated by the catchall phrase "International productions" or "Major regional productions". Future productions should not be included in the infobox, but only added after the production opens." Please let me know if there is disagreement. This keeps the infoboxes from becoming long lists of productions. If a production is material, it should be described in the body of the article, rather than listed in the infobox. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone updated the Trivia template, and I tweaked the introductory language. Feel free to modify or discuss. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked the Reception section in our Article Structure guidelines. I think we all agree that critical reception is required, not optional, and that box office or sales success should be mentioned if the information is available, right? If not, please discuss. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I think these guidelines would benefit from a clearer description of which awards are appropriate for inclusion in the Awards section. Perhaps the Template:Infobox musical guidelines could be examined in conjunction with this. Given notability guidelines, I think it's important that only major awards be listed. These would definitely include, for Broadway, the Tonys and Drama Desk; for Off-Broadway, the Obies; for the U.S., the Pulitzer Prize, which has been won by several musicals; for the West End, the Oliviers and, if there's second London award of high merit, it should be included too (I'm not sure how significant the ones I've been able to find, the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award are).
As far as international productions go, apparently there are awards given in Australia (the Helpmann Awards) and Toronto (the Dora Mavor Moore Award), but again, I'm not sure how important they are considered to be. I think in France the Molière Award appears to be the most important theatre award; in Germany, it looks like the Nestroy Awards and Faust Awards are pretty important, but since most of the information about them is in German, it's hard for me to tell. MarianWilde ( talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not looking at this post for awhile! Thanks for commenting, TimRiley. Assuming the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award are of equal merit, I think we can go ahead with the 3 British theatre awards listed above. I'm not sure what to do about national awards outside the U.S. and Canada, but since, as SSilvers said, the main issue appears to be preventing the inclusion of awards of dubious merit given to American productions, we could formulate a general guideline (covering all nations) saying that only major awards are to be listed and, for musicals performed in the U.S., these are limited to the Tonys, Drama Desk, Obies, and Pulitzer; and, for musicals performed in Britain, these are limited to the Oliviers, Evening Standard, and Critics' Circle. MarianWilde ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added a couple sentences to the "Awards" section according to my suggestion in my previous post. See [1]. MarianWilde ( talk) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a new wiki contributor, and still trying to learn the intricacies of editing as well as follow all the guidelines -- so I have 2 questions for the group so I can be helpful. First, it looks like most musicals have an External Link to IBDB (and we even have a Template to make that easy to do!). Is the goal that we want every article about a Broadway Musical to have such an External Link? Second, I see that we have an agreed upon article structure. Is the goal of the structure that articles should contain those elements in the order presented in the structure, or just contain the elements, regardless of sequencing. (In the words, if the list of musical numbers comes after the list of productions, does it matter, or should it be re-arranged?) MPW NYC ( talk) 12:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[Left] MPW, I would say that once an article has a reasonable introduction containing information about the creators, director, choreographer and original cast, as well as when and where the musical premiered and how long it ran, list of musical numbers and synopsis that summarizes the whole plot, it is probably a start-class article, rather than a stub. Wang (musical), for example does not have a full-blown plot summary, so I agree that it is still a stub. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, again, Ssilvers. This is very helpful. So two follow-up questions. Can you look at Ankles Aweigh -- I added the song list. It already has the plot (though it's short and listed in the "Overview" section, not a "Synopsis" section. It looks like everything else you mention is there. Do you think it's ready to upgrade from Stub to Start? And if you agree, how does the status of an article get changed? MPW NYC ( talk) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
[Left]I fixed my sloppy references, and removed your notations that they needed page numbers. Thanks for this advice. I don't think I've thought about proper footnoting since college! MPW NYC ( talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a help section that explains the structure of a table? The Awards table for Sugar Babies has formatting errors and would love to fix it (the year column breaks at the wrong row), but my attempts to do so haven't worked. I'm sure there's a help section somewhere, but haven't found it yet. MPW NYC ( talk) 12:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on the article All American, adding some information and references, and re-organizing the original content to fit our article structure. Let me know if you think I did it well, and whether you think this article can be upgraded from WP:START status or not? If so, what is the "process" for doing so? MPW NYC ( talk) 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Nitpick: Looking at a list of several projects' similar guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Names and orders for section headings, this page here is the only one not following WP:TITLEFORMAT by using a capital "S"; it really ought to be WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article structure. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)