![]() | 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. |
Thanks to everyone for the above spirited discussion. It seems that the project has been very quiet lately, after a period of extremely productive activity over the summer. It seems that when Omtay goes to school, not much happens. :-) But it is obvious that there is much, much more work to do on the project. MusicMaker, what if we sent out a message to the talkpages of all participants with a request to help out with a collaboration of the month? We need a really focused project to get tangible results, I think? I would also suggest cleaning up the To do list to take off the original 10 musicals that were listed there and have had several months to be worked on. -- Ssilvers 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The message is in the template sandbox. If you have any changes, feel free to make them. Otherwise, I'll send it out tonight. — Music Maker 5376 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sincerely, Meldshal 42 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There are separate articles for:
They each have rather different information. Can anyone straighten this out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This "fair use" image is up for deletion, as it has no source info. It was uploaded by a blocked user. Can anyone save it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's been deleted. Please proceed when you can. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The vandal is back under a new name. -- Ssilvers 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
We've been tidying the article for Wicked and trying to get it ready for GA assessment. The main criticism we received from the assessor chap was that the synopsis was rather long - which is perfectly true, it's about double the 900 words recommended - but we're having trouble shrinking it! Turns out Wicked has a surprisingly complicated plot! If anyone could take a quick look - and by all means, be very drastic - we'd be grateful. - Dafyd 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, congrats, and thanks for all your hard work. Finally some musicals articles are getting focused attention. See below. -- Ssilvers 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article for Hair is getting close to GA-class, I think, but it is terribly under-illustrated. Can anyone come up with a free image or two for the article? -- Ssilvers 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Good, if we can use it under WP rules. What I was hoping, though, was that someone may have a photo that they took from a production that they are willing to contribute to the public domain. -- Ssilvers 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is watching this page, but it gets its fair share of vandalism. If a couple more people could add it to their watchpages, it would be helpful. — Music Maker 5376 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article. Seeing as the film was based on Hairspray (musical), I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome. Also, for a while now I've been trying to determine if the Hairspray (2007 film) article falls under the scope of this WikiProject or not. I know that it's not technically a musical theatre production, but it is a musical film that was based on the musical theatre production of the same name. Anyway, I thought I would ask. Thanks! — Mears man ( talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As User:Ozgod currently has a big "retired" banner on his page, i suggest he be dropped down to the "Inactive members" list. ChrisStansfield Contribs 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the new image that someone added permissible/appropriate? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. But having thought about it a little, I'm thinking that this photo of an amateur production with homemade costumes and a bare "stone wall" set hardly illustrates the show. You cannot tell from the photo which characters are onstage and what scene it is from. I'll leave the image alone if you think it's of any value, but I really don't see how it contributes helpfully to the article. I think it's the visual equivalent of a sentence that says "my school did the show," except that it takes up more space. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone's been watching the discussion over at
Legally Blonde (musical), but we're running into some concerns over how things are credited. The recording has one listing for which characters sing which songs, whereas ibdb says something different. Slightly, but enough for there to be some concern about it. I'm just wondering what other editors think about it -- should we blindly trust ibdb over the recording? Does ibdb reflect what was in the Playbill or do they use some other source?
My own feelings are that ibdb is somewhat standardized, whereas CDs are necessarily trying to sell you something. I think that when it comes to titles, characters, song listings, and the like, ibdb should be held inviolate. As to which characters sing which songs, I'm not as sure.
I'm thinking that the hierarchy of sources should be Playbill, ibdb, OBCR. Should we stand by this in the face of discrepancies? Technically, according to WP policies, if sources differ as to the information, both sets should be reflected, but that seems rather silly for something like this. Should we even worry about who gets credited first on which song? —
Music
Maker
5376
22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Information found in IBDB is derived primarily from theatre programs (in most cases from a production's opening night). Supplemental information was taken from newspaper and magazine reports, theatrical text books, interviews with theatre professionals, and League archives. For consistency's sake, information in the IBDB is not necessarily presented in the exact format as in the original theatrical program, but best efforts have been used not to alter the meaning of any function or billing.
(Outdent) Fundamentally, I agree completely. However, I've been watching a lot of changes to this particular songlist over the past month or so. I don't know the show well enough to be able to tell what the changes have been -- whether its been in song order, names, or how they've been credited. Looking through the history, I find this diff that looks like it might part of that. If we're using ibdb as "the" source for the songlist, then we also have to use them as to how things are credited. I agree that this particular point is splitting hairs, but we can't say "this source is right here, but wrong there" -- especially when it's in the same list. — Music Maker 5376 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree: You can rely on a source for the information from that source that is corroborated or otherwise appears reliable and augment it with information from other sources. You don't need to reject a source completely simply because *some* of the information in it is in error -- the best thing to do is to try to compare the various sources and figure out what information is most reliable. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the situation here is similar to that of a jury weighing evidence, but your premise is 180 degrees wrong (I'm a lawyer). A jury must consider all the evidence and then *weigh* its probity. A jury can give weight to some parts of a witness's testimony and not others, unless the judge instructs the jury that a piece of evidence is not admissible. If a source is generally reliable, then WP:V says that you can use it. If there appears to be an error, it does not mean that you have to throw out the entire source. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. If the cast album is notable in itself apart from the show, I guess if it sold really well, then the differences should be noted; but in general, I'd say that we should be trying to describe the show and using all the evidence available to try to figure out the facts. I thought that the issue, though, was what to do if one thinks that IBDB may have contained an error? Sorry, I've lost track of what we're discussing. Please ignore any of my ruminations above that are irrelevant to the actual issue, whatever it is. Best regards, and happy holidays. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been a revamp of the voice articles: Soprano, Mezzo-soprano, Contralto, Tenor, Baritone, Bass-baritone, and Bass.
One problem we encountered was embedded lists, i.e. lists of varying relevance added on to the articles. Some of these were related to musicals. The solution adopted - I think consistent with WP policy - was to split off some of the lists into separate articles.
These are the ones created for musicals:
Will these turn into viable articles? Should they be merged? Should they be deleted? Maybe that's for the project here to decide! I'm sure you will know best!
So enjoy the new articles and have a great Xmas/holiday! Festively yours. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. They are unnecessary, and I think they will become OR sinks. I see that Bill Sykes from Oliver! is listed both in the Baritone article and the bass-baritone article. How do you draw the line between bass and bass-baritone? Vocal ranges in musicals often don't fall very neatly into one or another category, and keys are often changed from one production to another. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Another vote to delete. The only accurate way to list a voicing of a musical theatre part is by note and I don't think the 5,000 plus List of A-sharp to G-flat roles in musicals style articles would be such a great idea. Anybody up to go through the bureaucracy that is WP:AFD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtay38 ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:D
Happy‑
melon
17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)They've all been nominated. Weigh in here. Happy editing! -- omtay 38 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Porgy and Bess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is nominated for deletion. I forked this article from the main article, and would rather not see the information creep back to the main article. Any assistance in punching up the article would be appreciated. — Music Maker 5376 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I think it should be deleted because it is basically just a list of songs in the show. And also it only has info on 2 cast recordings. If the article was to stay i think it should be done like the 3 hairspray album articles and have more information than just listings. Mark E ( talk) 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think i'm for the delete also, a week delete (so no vot-ey on the AfD for me). But now, when deleting the album info you can say "Hey, this info was forked and the article was later deleted, it must not be important" and then revert. Happy merry! -- omtay 38 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor deleted a reference to the current production of this show at the Warehouse Theatre in Croydon, London. Should this production be listed under the productions section? That is, is it notable enough? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (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. |
Thanks to everyone for the above spirited discussion. It seems that the project has been very quiet lately, after a period of extremely productive activity over the summer. It seems that when Omtay goes to school, not much happens. :-) But it is obvious that there is much, much more work to do on the project. MusicMaker, what if we sent out a message to the talkpages of all participants with a request to help out with a collaboration of the month? We need a really focused project to get tangible results, I think? I would also suggest cleaning up the To do list to take off the original 10 musicals that were listed there and have had several months to be worked on. -- Ssilvers 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The message is in the template sandbox. If you have any changes, feel free to make them. Otherwise, I'll send it out tonight. — Music Maker 5376 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sincerely, Meldshal 42 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There are separate articles for:
They each have rather different information. Can anyone straighten this out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This "fair use" image is up for deletion, as it has no source info. It was uploaded by a blocked user. Can anyone save it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's been deleted. Please proceed when you can. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The vandal is back under a new name. -- Ssilvers 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
We've been tidying the article for Wicked and trying to get it ready for GA assessment. The main criticism we received from the assessor chap was that the synopsis was rather long - which is perfectly true, it's about double the 900 words recommended - but we're having trouble shrinking it! Turns out Wicked has a surprisingly complicated plot! If anyone could take a quick look - and by all means, be very drastic - we'd be grateful. - Dafyd 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, congrats, and thanks for all your hard work. Finally some musicals articles are getting focused attention. See below. -- Ssilvers 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article for Hair is getting close to GA-class, I think, but it is terribly under-illustrated. Can anyone come up with a free image or two for the article? -- Ssilvers 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Good, if we can use it under WP rules. What I was hoping, though, was that someone may have a photo that they took from a production that they are willing to contribute to the public domain. -- Ssilvers 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is watching this page, but it gets its fair share of vandalism. If a couple more people could add it to their watchpages, it would be helpful. — Music Maker 5376 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article. Seeing as the film was based on Hairspray (musical), I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome. Also, for a while now I've been trying to determine if the Hairspray (2007 film) article falls under the scope of this WikiProject or not. I know that it's not technically a musical theatre production, but it is a musical film that was based on the musical theatre production of the same name. Anyway, I thought I would ask. Thanks! — Mears man ( talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As User:Ozgod currently has a big "retired" banner on his page, i suggest he be dropped down to the "Inactive members" list. ChrisStansfield Contribs 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the new image that someone added permissible/appropriate? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. But having thought about it a little, I'm thinking that this photo of an amateur production with homemade costumes and a bare "stone wall" set hardly illustrates the show. You cannot tell from the photo which characters are onstage and what scene it is from. I'll leave the image alone if you think it's of any value, but I really don't see how it contributes helpfully to the article. I think it's the visual equivalent of a sentence that says "my school did the show," except that it takes up more space. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone's been watching the discussion over at
Legally Blonde (musical), but we're running into some concerns over how things are credited. The recording has one listing for which characters sing which songs, whereas ibdb says something different. Slightly, but enough for there to be some concern about it. I'm just wondering what other editors think about it -- should we blindly trust ibdb over the recording? Does ibdb reflect what was in the Playbill or do they use some other source?
My own feelings are that ibdb is somewhat standardized, whereas CDs are necessarily trying to sell you something. I think that when it comes to titles, characters, song listings, and the like, ibdb should be held inviolate. As to which characters sing which songs, I'm not as sure.
I'm thinking that the hierarchy of sources should be Playbill, ibdb, OBCR. Should we stand by this in the face of discrepancies? Technically, according to WP policies, if sources differ as to the information, both sets should be reflected, but that seems rather silly for something like this. Should we even worry about who gets credited first on which song? —
Music
Maker
5376
22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Information found in IBDB is derived primarily from theatre programs (in most cases from a production's opening night). Supplemental information was taken from newspaper and magazine reports, theatrical text books, interviews with theatre professionals, and League archives. For consistency's sake, information in the IBDB is not necessarily presented in the exact format as in the original theatrical program, but best efforts have been used not to alter the meaning of any function or billing.
(Outdent) Fundamentally, I agree completely. However, I've been watching a lot of changes to this particular songlist over the past month or so. I don't know the show well enough to be able to tell what the changes have been -- whether its been in song order, names, or how they've been credited. Looking through the history, I find this diff that looks like it might part of that. If we're using ibdb as "the" source for the songlist, then we also have to use them as to how things are credited. I agree that this particular point is splitting hairs, but we can't say "this source is right here, but wrong there" -- especially when it's in the same list. — Music Maker 5376 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree: You can rely on a source for the information from that source that is corroborated or otherwise appears reliable and augment it with information from other sources. You don't need to reject a source completely simply because *some* of the information in it is in error -- the best thing to do is to try to compare the various sources and figure out what information is most reliable. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the situation here is similar to that of a jury weighing evidence, but your premise is 180 degrees wrong (I'm a lawyer). A jury must consider all the evidence and then *weigh* its probity. A jury can give weight to some parts of a witness's testimony and not others, unless the judge instructs the jury that a piece of evidence is not admissible. If a source is generally reliable, then WP:V says that you can use it. If there appears to be an error, it does not mean that you have to throw out the entire source. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. If the cast album is notable in itself apart from the show, I guess if it sold really well, then the differences should be noted; but in general, I'd say that we should be trying to describe the show and using all the evidence available to try to figure out the facts. I thought that the issue, though, was what to do if one thinks that IBDB may have contained an error? Sorry, I've lost track of what we're discussing. Please ignore any of my ruminations above that are irrelevant to the actual issue, whatever it is. Best regards, and happy holidays. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been a revamp of the voice articles: Soprano, Mezzo-soprano, Contralto, Tenor, Baritone, Bass-baritone, and Bass.
One problem we encountered was embedded lists, i.e. lists of varying relevance added on to the articles. Some of these were related to musicals. The solution adopted - I think consistent with WP policy - was to split off some of the lists into separate articles.
These are the ones created for musicals:
Will these turn into viable articles? Should they be merged? Should they be deleted? Maybe that's for the project here to decide! I'm sure you will know best!
So enjoy the new articles and have a great Xmas/holiday! Festively yours. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. They are unnecessary, and I think they will become OR sinks. I see that Bill Sykes from Oliver! is listed both in the Baritone article and the bass-baritone article. How do you draw the line between bass and bass-baritone? Vocal ranges in musicals often don't fall very neatly into one or another category, and keys are often changed from one production to another. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Another vote to delete. The only accurate way to list a voicing of a musical theatre part is by note and I don't think the 5,000 plus List of A-sharp to G-flat roles in musicals style articles would be such a great idea. Anybody up to go through the bureaucracy that is WP:AFD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtay38 ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:D
Happy‑
melon
17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)They've all been nominated. Weigh in here. Happy editing! -- omtay 38 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Porgy and Bess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is nominated for deletion. I forked this article from the main article, and would rather not see the information creep back to the main article. Any assistance in punching up the article would be appreciated. — Music Maker 5376 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I think it should be deleted because it is basically just a list of songs in the show. And also it only has info on 2 cast recordings. If the article was to stay i think it should be done like the 3 hairspray album articles and have more information than just listings. Mark E ( talk) 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think i'm for the delete also, a week delete (so no vot-ey on the AfD for me). But now, when deleting the album info you can say "Hey, this info was forked and the article was later deleted, it must not be important" and then revert. Happy merry! -- omtay 38 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor deleted a reference to the current production of this show at the Warehouse Theatre in Croydon, London. Should this production be listed under the productions section? That is, is it notable enough? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)