Talk:West Side Story/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Systemic bias re: musical theater; what happened to WP:GLOBAL?

I am surprised to be reversed when I tried to specify that the only productions listed in the info box are American & British. Even more surprised to read an edit summary like "these are the only major markets for musical theatre. This is consistent throughout the entire musical theatre project on Wikipedia". I am referred to a musical theatre group which I do not know. Please provide me with a link to any discussion where consensus on English Wikipedia has decided that the United States and Britain "are the only major markets for musical theatre." Unless I see specific evidence that supports a WP consensus like that, I will make the change again. Frankly, I'm rather shocked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Musical theatre, except for Victorian burlesque and Edwardian musical comedy is an American genre. It developed from previous European genres including operetta, burlesque, [comic opera] and others. Modern musicals performed beyond English-speaking countries are emulating the American product, and the two major markets for musicals are America and England. The Infoboxes for musicals do not attempt to list all productions of a show (thank heavens). There have been tens or hundreds of thousands of productions of West Side Story, and so we only list the Broadway, West End and US/Brit national tours (together with the original regional or off-Broadway productions) of musicals in Infoboxes, since these are by far the most important productions. Yes, this is specified here: Introduction and Infobox in the Article Structure page at WP:MUSICALS. This is not new and has been done consistently on Wikipedia for more than 10 years. This is not systemic bias, it is reality. And just because a genre was developed in a particular country does not mean that the article about it violates WP:GLOBAL. However, this is the wrong place to discuss all this. As I suggested before, if you want to have a useful discussion about it, let's go to the WP:MUSICALS talk page, and you can engage with other Wikipedians who care about musical theatre. I can tell you that I have contributed substantially to nearly all the FAs in the musical theatre area and many of the GAs, and I have focused on musical theatre here on WP since 2006. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss whether or not my specification that the productions listed are American and British should have been removed, as if there have not been many major productions of West Side Story in other countries. That's all we are discussing, as far as I'm concerned, not any "attempt to list all productions of a show". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, on that point, the productions listed in the infobox represent *all* the long-running major-market productions of the musical worldwide (per the WP:MUSICALS article structure guidelines on infoboxes), plus the original tryouts and the major film production. Personally, I would delete the film production because it is a production of an adaptation, rather than the musical (it has its own article and is also discussed and cross-referenced later in the article), but many members of the WP:MUSICALS project like to include the major film productions in the infoboxes, so I don't resist it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"Worldwide"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, worldwide, since Broadway, the West End, US national tours and Brit national tours are the only "major markets" for musical theatre, each with over $1billion in annual ticket sales. No other markets for musical theatre in the world (China, Japan, SKorea, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Canada, etc.) come close. That is why the WP:MUSICALS project decided that those are the ones that should be included in infoboxes. Frankly, I would rather not include *any* productions in infoboxes, because they are a moving target that require constant updating and, IMO, they clutter up the top of articles. If someone really wants a good discussion of the major productions of a particular show, they really should read the Productions section, which can list the important productions (even if not in a "major market") with much more nuance and clarity. Note that this article has a section on International productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In the links you've provided, I see nothing defining "major markets" as only American and British. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The link that I provided states in the second paragraph: "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"." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And I still see nothing wrong with defining the list for clarity, as I attempted to do. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is redundant and not consistent with all the FA musicals in Wikipedia, where the IB has been vetted by numerous editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd be up for a broader revisiting and discussion about this 'major market' issue at WP:MUSICALS. I've never been fully convinced by the decision criteria applied. Boneymau (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Be my guest. I will argue there that the revivals should come out of the IB, and that only the first major premiere should be listed in the IB. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In all my 12 years of Wikipedia work, logged in or not, frankly, the assertion that the U.S. & Britain are "the only major markets for musical theatre" is one of the most preoposterous I have ever seen. I am no less shocked now that I was the other day when I saw this preposterous assertion for the first time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: I am responding to a third opinion request about the productions in the infobox. I'm not sure that I see the WP:GLOBAL/systemic bias issue here. This is a New York play set in New York with most major productions staged in New York or touring from New York. I'm honestly not sure that any other country needs to be mentioned in the lead or infobox (though I have no issue with the West End productions) or that it needs to be specified that major productions are US & British. The article is quite large, and we should only cover major aspects of the subject in the lead (and infobox). The article has an International productions section. If any such productions there have sufficient weight in the article, that might justify their inclusion in the lead/infobox. But I don't see that being the case.

For comparison, I'm going to mention The Drowsy Chaperone, a Canadian musical. It started in Toronto as a very low-budget affair, practically a sketch show at fringe festivals. They gained investors and restaged on Broadway as a full musical, which did very well. So, as a Toronto play which met success on Broadway, it rightly includes all of that in the lead and infobox, even if the Toronto productions weren't big-budget. As a relatively new play, the other national and international productions carry more weight overall so also have some inclusion. I don't feel that it's a different treatment, just a different weight of notable material which precludes a lot of the international coverage in the lead/infobox for West Side Story. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Since you appear to be interested in more eyes on the question, I'll chime in to say that while I know very little about musical theatre, I find Ssilvers position unobjectionable and their argument reasonable. I don't know musical theatre as a field so I cannot vouch for its factual basis, but I do care quite a bit about the global perspective (which we have major issues maintaining in general) and I have no complaints in that regard about this practice within the relevant WikiProject (I do however tend to agree with Ssilvers that the list would better be pruned to inaugural productions or some strict definition of what merits mention). So, fwiw, and to the degree it's helpful… --Xover (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Per Xover and Reidgreg's comment above, I don't see the bias here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How much money have big French, German, Austrian, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish theatres made on popular & lucrative musicals per decade? How much money have music publishers made on translations? Just to mention European markets. Does anyone care, or it is just Britannia rules (as with Pantomime) + OK then, her former colony? I really don't want to call anyone ignorant (untravelled? passportless?), but I'm still absolutely flabbergasted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A lot less than Broadway and the West End, each of which are markets with well over $1 billion annually in ticket sales (and well over 10 million tickets sold per year). If you go to Paris or Berlin, they don't have anything like the same number of musicals playing simultaneously like in New York and London. Just a few theaters playing American or British musicals and occasionally an American-style musical written in the local language, such as Les Misérables (musical). In fact, Boublil and Schönberg are literally the only non-Brit European musical theatre-writing team to have produced a musical theatre blockbuster. Nearly all the great musical theatre writers since WWI have been American (except notably Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice). You can see much more opera and operetta in continental Europe than in the US, but they are not major markets for musicals on the scale of New York and London. When the WP:MUSICALS project began, these were the discussions we had, and you certainly have not presented any reason to change this conclusion regarding the thousands of WP articles on musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you make these points over in the Talk page at WP:MUSICALS, SchroCat. I'm not sure that West Side Story is a particularly special case that justifies divergence from the standard, so if you think a shift in approach is merited then it needs the authority of consensus there. Boneymau (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Boneymau, I'm not sure you meant to ping me for my brief comment? - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry wrong S name. I meant to ping SergeWoodzing. Boneymau (talk)

SergeWoodzing: You are promoting a dogmatic position, while insinuating that it is based on wide knowledge and that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. As if a revival staged in Nuremberg were equal to Broadway and the West End. Nuremberg, um Gottes Willen!

Your position reminds me of other dogmatic positions abroad today, e.g., regarding the naming of pandemics. You’re wrong. 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel pretty

IBDb agrees with the Sondheim guide that Maria is singing to Rosalia, Teresita and Francisca in the number. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

2020

The reason I came here was to read up on critical responses to the current Broadway revival, but all I could find was lists of pending awards for which the show has been nominated. Am I missing something? A different WP page, perhaps? 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT panned the production, and other reviews ranged from confused to angry concerning the cuts, direction (especially the videos), casting and choreography. The cast was mostly praised. Some reviews are now cited in the article. It seems that the production may not reopen, particularly as Disney would prefer that its upcoming more traditional film version not have to compete with the marketing of the controversial stage production; Diller and other financiers of the musical are friends of Spielberg. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"West Side" wikilink and surrounding wording

There've been a few edits in the lede around the linking of "west side" and surrounding text:

• [1]: in the Upper West Side of New York City
• [2]: in the West Side of New York City
• [3] (my edit): in the west side of Manhattan
• [4]: in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City

I don't have any particular dog in this fight; except that whatever is settled on should not link to West Side (a disambiguation page); that was my motivation to edit. TJRC (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that #2 was either vandalism or just a bad edit. If you had just reverted to the stable version, that would have been helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't on my watchlist. I just noticed the error and made a correction, without plumbing into its history. Again, I'm not attached to that particular repair. TJRC (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)