Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive9-10-07

• 5
• Archive 6
• 7
• 10

Pretty new navboxes

I just posted a whole bunch of new navboxes on the template page. {{Bock and Harnick}}, {{Jason Robert Brown}}, {{Maury Yeston}}, {{Gershwins}}, {{Marvin Hamlisch}}, {{Cole Porter}}, etc. Mostly composers, but I did make one for {{Joseph Stein}}. I wanted to do one for Jerome Kern, but so many of the links are red. Irving Berlin, too, was kinda hard to figure out, so I haven't done him, yet, either. I also alphabetized that table.... I'm going to start putting them on articles now.—  MusicMaker 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Articles Needing Creation

Created it to help us fill out the redlinks on all the pretty new navboxes. I'll fill out the rest sometime later tonight after dinner :-) --omtay38 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that redundant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Red Links? —  MusicMaker5376 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much, these are articles in (to put it appetizingly) "In desperate need of creation". Red links was a page i created a long time ago of every reference to any musical i could find on wikipedia. For a long while it has just sat there, because it is overwhelming. The new page exists as a sort of "Okay, we should really make these articles. They're redlinked in a bunch of places, or they really are notable and should be, at the very least, stub-iffied." It's basically the tiny Wikipedia:Articles for creation of our project. Lots of projects have them, i thought we should to :-). --omtay38 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous troll is back - help, please

The guy who reverted MusicMaker's edits a couple weeks ago is back, now posting as User:209.247.22.170. I reverted his edits on Saturday, but he undid my edits. Can someone else please revert him this time? -- Ssilvers 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. If there are any further problems. They can be taken to WP:AIV. --omtay38 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes to {{Musicals-project}}

I've tidied up the code a bit and, more importantly, added some new class options. Take a look at the {{Musicals-project}} page. The new options are for categories, images, portals, and templates. Cheers! --omtay38 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Category rename

I've nominated Category:London West End musicals to be renamed Category:West End musicals as "London West End" is redundant when talking about theatre. You can weigh in here. —  MusicMaker5376 00:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be London musicals, since there are some major theatres in the East End too? -- Ssilvers 00:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I don't know. But the collective adjective for London theatre is "West End". I think it's like Broadway -- Off-Broadway theatres can be on Broadway and Broadway theatres can be on a different street. —  MusicMaker5376 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any theatres in the East End that a) are not subsidised and b) regularly mount musicals with a full-size band, chorus etc. Johnbod 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Inevitably, this has provoked a suggestion to delete this category entirely, and the on & off Broadway categories as well. I have opposed this but been asked for references as to the use of the term "West End musical" etc. Not my field, so please help out. Johnbod 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BRUNCH - The Musical

Is this notable? It looks like a reading of a new script by students - but why did it get so much press (7 footnotes!)? -- Ssilvers 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the talkpage of the creator, it seems to be a recreation of previously deleted material. —  MusicMaker5376 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And, really, it's just been workshopped and read. In Wisconsin. Not exactly a hotbed of theatrical activity. I'd say that if the festival production comes to fruition, it'll be notable, but right now it smacks of crystalballery. —  MusicMaker5376 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep it, seems notable with all those references. [From Mark K]

Yes, but are the references WP:RS, or are they bullshit? This seems like it has never been professionally produced and may never be. This, I think, is an example of an experienced Wikipedia editor propping up a non-notable article with alot of stuff that looks good but merely serves to cover up its non-notability? -- Ssilvers 13:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to go with the latter. They are mostly school publications and an "alternative" Detroit paper. Merely proves that it exists, not that it's notable. I think it's a CSD, as recreation. If it achieves it's promised 2008 production as part of the festival, I would say that, then, it can be recreated. —  MusicMaker5376 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Theatre infobox

I don't want to beat a dead horse (nor would I really want to beat a live horse....), but I think I'm going to start implementing the infobox in the sandbox. I left a message over at WikiProject Theatre, but there doesn't really seem to be any activity over there. I think it's pretty good, but let me know if anything is drastically incorrect or I'm forgetting something that should be on there. —  MusicMaker5376 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you do London theatres, please check with this guy, who has done mega work on them over the past year: User:Kbthompson. -- Ssilvers 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Category tree

I added a Category Tree page. It's an easy way for us to keep track of the ridiculous number of categories that we have. On the talk page, I'm going to add some ideas. —  MusicMaker5376 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates out of control?

An editor made an elaborate template for The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee‎ that doesn't seem to be a good idea. It largely duplicates information presented perfectly well elsewhere in the article and doesn't add anything, I think. I believe that the same editor is creating similar templates for other shows. If we have a consensus on this, can we please let him know? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is pretty unnecessary. It didn't seem that it actually does anything, it just reiterates what's in the article. —  MusicMaker5376 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to explain to him/her that we don't add those for individual musicals? I'm running out of town for two weeks and will have very limited computer access. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Damnable dead horse....

Just wanted to let everyone know that {{Infobox Theatre}} has been implemented. It's actually pretty cool -- it has fields for longitude and latitude, so the coordinates show up in the upper right hand corner of the page. The whole thing is coded with hCard so, theoretically, you can download the contact to your address book, as well as plot it on a map and get directions to it. Pretty cool. —  MusicMaker5376 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent stuff - sorry I never got back to you about this, I've been stupid busy over the last couple of months. I know that some of the London theatres are still missing the infobox, so I'd be more than happy to look at those over the weekend. Great work! - Dafyd 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, man, no sweat. I was starting to feel a little neglected, but I was able to rustle some help from another editor who had some good ideas. As with anything on WP, it's a work in progress, so if you have any suggestions to improve it, I'm all ears! —  MusicMaker5376 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

25th Annual TfD

I've nominated {{The 25th Annual}} for deletion. You can weigh in on this page. —  MusicMaker5376 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

New welcome template

I've created a welcome template for new members; you can see it on the template page. It's much wider than that in practice, so it's not really that freaky looking. When using it, don't forget to use "subst" or your signature won't show: {{subst:MTWelcome}} —  MusicMaker5376 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Every single Rent character page is up for AfD

And honestly, in the current state they're in, I don't blame the nominators. We need to turn them from original research pastiche into sourced articles and maybe they'll have a chance. I've done some work on Angel Dumott Schunard but I'm afraid it may not be enough. Crystallina 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been debating for about a month about whether or not I was going to nominate them. I think they're unnecessary. —  MusicMaker5376 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of them can indeed be merged - you'll notice I haven't done anything to, say, Mimi's article, for instance, but I think Angel passes the line of notability in this case. Crystallina 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job at getting it encyclopedic and referenced. However, it's still almost entirely information that's found in the main article. That's my main problem with characters and songs having their own articles: there's just no need. Anything that can be said about them can (and should) be in the main article. —  MusicMaker5376 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hairspray question

Small I know but i dont wanna mess around with name changes etc because on several occasions now ive screwed them up badly and it took me awhile to sort out.

This article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairspray_%282002_soundtrack%29 is the "soundtrack" page for the broadway musical, but 2 questions...

1. Is this article notable enough
2. Shouldnt it be a "Cast Recording" rather than a "Soundtrack" Mark E 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (This was me!! I posted but wasnt logged in - Sorry)

1. This is a rough question. With Billboard actually charting such things nowadays, and I'm sure this one was pretty high on the charts, that would be enough to establish notability. That information doesn't appear to actually be in the article, but it should be. Secondly, I would rather see this information in a separate article than it keep creeping into Hairspray (musical).
2. We, as a WikiProject, haven't really established naming conventions for articles on cast albums, so you see them all around WP with various names: I know there's Rent (albums) (because I created it). Strictly speaking, I agree that it shouldn't be "Soundtrack", as that refers to a film, but leave it for now, until we've had a chance to discuss the matter (a conversation I'm going to start below). —  MusicMaker5376 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a musical's cast album is definitely not a "soundtrack"! I would rename it Hairspray (album) or albums if there is more than one. -- Ssilvers 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In the context of Template:Infobox Album (WikiProject Albums), the cast recording would probably fall into the soundtrack group, e.g. for Hairspray (cast recording) (currently listed as Hairspray (soundtrack) as of 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)):

{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name        = Hairspray (cast recording)
| Type        = soundtrack
| Artist      = various artists
| Cover       = 
| Released    = 
| Recorded    = 
| Genre       = Show tune
| Length      = 
| Label       = 
| Producer    = 
| Reviews     = 
| Last album  = 
| This album  = 
| Next album  = 
}}

:Recommend taking up a new Type:Cast_recording for Template:Infobox Album with WikiProject Albums. - B.C.Schmerker 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(Further discussion: Template talk:Infobox Album.)

Albums

Well, kids, how should we name them? I would think that keeping them in line with the rest of WP naming conventions would be a good idea, which is why I called that article "Rent (albums)". I don't think this affects too many articles, but it may down the road (and it's a good way to cut down the size of existing articles, which is what happened with Rent). As I said above, I think "Soundtrack" is a no-no, "Cast Recording" isn't a bad idea, but my own thought is to maintain naming conventions as strictly as we can. Maybe some input from WikiProject Albums? Thoughts? —  MusicMaker5376 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast Revording sounds ridiculous to me. I think Albums is best. Therequiembellishere 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found Ray (soundtrack) as the article for the soundtrack to Ray (film). If that's the naming convention for film soundtrack albums, (cast recording) might be the way to go (as ridiculous as it might sound, and I agree...). If someone already hasn't, I'm going to leave a note at WP Albums. —  MusicMaker5376 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit apprehensive about (cast recording) because many CD's of musicals are actually titled things like "original cast recording" or "broadway cast recording" or "Semi-New Reviewing Off-Broadway Junior Cast Recording" and i think using (cast recording) might encourage the introduction of those descriptors. I'm all for (album). --omtay38 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, but along the same lines, if those other recordings are charting on Billboard (or an equivalent, as Billboard is a little US-centric), there's no reason not to have articles for them. I mean, I hope this link stays forever red, but there's no reason not to allow for the creation of those articles. I think you're referring to one article on one recording not being called Avenue Q (2001 Original New York Broadway Cast Recording), but something like Chess (musical) could, right now, benefit from about three daughter articles on the several recordings. Too, I'm thinking about something like Grey Gardens that had both a successful Off-Broadway recording and a Broadway recording. —  MusicMaker5376 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I just think (album) would work. In the case of multiple cast recordings, (1998 album) or the like would suffice. Crystallina 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Talking with them over at WP:ALBUMS, they should be Musical (album), Musical (YEAR album) if further dab is needed. If we need to dab further, we can decide that down the road. —  MusicMaker5376 00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Images in the Musical Theatre article - Help, please!

Someone keeps deleting images from this article. Can anyone help restore them, please? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of the user that keeps deleting images is Videmus Omnia; he keeps claming that the use of those images is violating some copyright restirctions in Wikipedia. I've talked to him and if we put the fair use rationale for all the musical theatre posters or images he will stop deleting those images. I've restored a couple of images but please help with other images because this guy is hard. -- (Hapmt 19:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

I also put some more specific rationales on some images, but he continues to dispute the use. Can anyone help, please? Best regards -- Ssilvers 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If I get a chance today, I'll see what I can do. But I have to be honest, the first time I looked at that article and saw the Fantasticks logo so prominently placed, I had the same reaction. —  MusicMaker5376 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Videmus Omnia. Per WP:NFCC#8, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Does an image of the poster or logo of a show "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Would its omission be "detrimental to that understanding"? In both cases, I think the answer is clearly "no," which means that we do not have fair use justification for using ANY of these images, ever. A photo of a production could be justified as demonstrating "how it looks," but there's nothing about the poster or the logo which contributes to the educational value of the article. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think these images help explain to readers what musical theatre is about and gives significant information about the shows and history/development of the genre that cannot be explained by text alone. I believe that it would definitely be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject of musical theatre to delete all these fair use images. I also don't believe that free images exist that can give the same information. This is a question of interpreting the Policy, and I don't see any reason to interpret it as saying that you can't illustrate this article (or the parts of it that cover history subsequent to 1923). -- Ssilvers 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What, exactly, would the reader fail to understand by not seeing the logo to "A Chorus Line"? —  MusicMaker5376 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi!!!

Hello, my nick is Hapmt (Pedro for real) and I'm from Mexico. I love opera and theatre (including of course: musical theatre). I'm glad to join this project and excited to begin contributing. While I'm not editing in Wikipedia I go to university and I work for a company called OCESA Teatro, the main theatre producer in Latin America and Spain. That's why I'm actually working on the article of a musical called "Hoy No Me Puedo Levantar", very popular in Mexico and Spain, that has created an effect similar to Rent between young people. I want to colaborate adding information of foreign productions, especially in Latin America and Spain. My next project will be adding information about the Mexico City's revival of "Beauty and the Beast" that will open on September 20th. (Hapmt 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

¡Hola Hapmt!

I have to say that, during my recent bout of infoboxing, I was happy to see such a comprehensive article on a musical that hasn't yet received a major English-language production. Looking through its history, it looks like you're not certain what the article should be called. For foreign language titles, they should have the title that most English speakers would recognize. In this case, I'd think that any English speakers who've heard of the show would know it by the Spanish title. However, if it ever achieves an English production, we may have to re-evaluate based upon whatever title is used by the production.

But, on the whole, nice work, and welcome! —  MusicMaker5376 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome and good luck on the article!!!Mark E 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Full Monty

The poster for The Full Monty (musical) (see: Image:FullMonty.jpg) is marked for deletion. It needs source info and fair use summary. Can anyone add it? Or, is there a better image for the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That image doesn't even look that good. I'm sure we'll be able to find something better, sourced, and rationaled. —  MusicMaker5376 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Article fork

Why does The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas need to be forked? -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) For that matter, why does Sister Act need to be forked? -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Our experience at the musicals project has been that it is difficult to expand articles when the film version and stage musical version are conflagrated. Also, the Musicals project and film project have different article structure guidelines and concerns. For instance, a film only has one cast and crew, whereas a musical may have many productions, casts, crews, producers, etc. The plot and background sections are often quite different between the film and stage work. These are all easier to describe when the two versions are separated into their own articles. Even the talk pages are clearer when separated. Compare, e.g., West Side Story's film and musical articles. -- Ssilvers 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Conflagrated" isn't a word, and if it were, it would mean "set on fire". You mean "conflated". —  MusicMaker5376 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A really big fire. :) Still, no reason to be unkind; both explanations are satisfactory, and I was wondering the same about forking these articles, and others. Thanks for the clarification, guys. María (críticame) 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not the first time I've been "burned" by a misnomer! Plus, I think I was right: It is hard to expand articles when they've been incinerated.  ;-) -- Ssilvers 14:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my words were taken uncivilly; I really didn't mean them to be, nor did I mean the answer below to be taken that way. The concept of conflagrating articles made me laugh. There are a couple that could use a torch....

The list of articles needing a fork was mostly my creation. I put just about everything that had the source and the musical in one page, or the musical and subsequent film productions, or what have you. Most of them are relatively obvious why they're on there, others not as much. Mainly, if a musical article couldn't get a musical infobox because the film infobox was there, or it would look silly on an article about a poem, I put it on that list. If there are articles in the list that you don't feel need a fork, don't do it. Someone else might. Or might not. Basically, I was looking at that list as more of a suggestion for new members who might not know where to start to get their feet wet and get some experience using the article structure, or for experienced editors who have run out of ideas. No one's saying "FORK THESE OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES! SELF-CONFLAGRATION!!!!" —  MusicMaker5376 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions specifically instead of in "because I said so" language, Whorehouse could use a fork because the article is mainly about the stage production, yet carries a film infobox. Rather than raise the ire of the film people, it's probably better just to fork it. As for Sister Act, I was just getting tired of seeing it in musicals categories. There's not much to be said about the stage production, but an article could be made, and probably should. It's probably the one on the list that needs it the least, admittedly. —  MusicMaker5376 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote Sister Act the Musical on August 1.

I've seen many articles about musicals and plays that make mention of their film adaptations, but the films themselves don't have separate articles because they weren't significant releases and there's not enough to say about them, and therefore they shouldn't have their own articles. In my opinion, if the bulk (60%+) of an article is about a stage production, it should have a theatre infobox, not a film infobox. I've removed film infoboxes from theatre articles for just that reason, and nobody has ever reverted them. I'm going to add the theatre infobox to the Whorehouse article. ConoscoTutto 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I divided Whorehouse into two distinct stage ands film sections and added the theatre infobox. I hope it's satisfactory to all concerned. ConoscoTutto 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that you have done a very good job of demonstrating that the article ought to be forked, by bifurcating it so neatly (how's that, MM?). All one needs to do is copy the bottom half into a new article, divide the references appropriately and, (here is the big part of the project) move the film links to link to the new film article. -- Ssilvers 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi there, I just received my welcome message so I thought I'd say hi and make people aware I've made significant changes to the Parade (musical) page. If they're totally awful please let me know!  :-) Docta247 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. This is much clearer. The article needs more referencing, though. Can you cite to any more sources that you used? I restored a sentence that you had deleted - Did you think it was wrong, or just unreferenced? Also, have there been no US revivals at all? Also, you have numbered the songs using a #. However, unless the score is actually numbered this way, it would be better to simply bullet them using * asterisks. Thanks for joining the project, and happy editing!! -- Ssilvers 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go searching for references but apart from the synopsis it's all old material reworked so I don't necessarily know where it came from. I thought that sentence you replaced was unreferenced and not necessarily good for an article about the show in particular, but I respect your replacement. I will replace the numbers with asterisks as suggested, it's a good point. Docta247 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be that the sentence I replaced should be removed, but I am not sure what it is talking about, and I thought that we should figure out what it is getting at - do you know anything about the fraud and bankruptcy issues mentioned? Maybe a google search would clear up the issue. -- Ssilvers 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit I know nothing about these issues! I have no reason to doubt their veracity, but neither do I have information to support them... Docta247 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Starlight Express Mess

Someone completely changed the starlight express article and added info on EVERY production on songs and characters and it was just useless. Ive taken out most of them, but left the main 3 versions in. However I know I haven't done a very good job of it and simply haven't got time to edit it more as im preparing for staring college next week and just everything seems to be happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Everything got readded. Reverted again. The character list looks pretty bad and stuff. I mean everything that was there is already noted enough in the productions section. Mark E 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mark. I looked back at an earlier version where there were links to the characters and restored it. Can you take a look, please and make any necessary corrections? BTW, I do think that perhaps the new editor and you could compromise on a paragraph or two that describes all the changes in the songs (and characters) through the years. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Starlight Express 'mess', might I respectfully comment?

The poster who enthusiastically added information and was briskly slapped down for it had spent many hours compiling the production information in the hopes that it would be of use and interest to others. Yes, perhaps steps should have been taken to ascertain that the information would be welcomed. The poster had assumed that Wikipedia pages could simply be edited - that's the general impression one gets. But I'd like to point out that the manner in which the poster was rebuked was extremely hurtful and angering. Yes, that person is known to me in real life. I thought you might like to know how abrupt and rude your reaction - and the heading 'Starlight MESS' - appears to a youngster whose enthusiasm for sharing their very comprehensive knowledge of a subject on this site has just been squashed.

The information will be posted elsewhere on the internet, on a website dedicated to musical theatre. It's Wikipedia's loss.

I am a moderator on a very well-known musical theatre website and I would be appalled if such a lack of courtesy and consideration were shown to any of the forum members there. WriterWench 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't think that the editor was "slapped down". Wikipedia pages can simply be edited, and it is the perogative of subsequent editors to remove or edit down information as they see fit. Wikipedia isn't simply about contributing, it's about editing. It's about making the information concise and accessible. We aren't just creating a database of every imaginable piece of information: we're creating an encyclopedia. The editor in question had a wealth of information, but that information has to fit certain parameters. He seems very willing to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and the unfortunate thing about the Wikipedia society is that newer members end up getting turned off by the policies, etc. I admire his enthusiasm, and hope that he stays around long enough to learn how to do it in an encyclopedic manner. —  MusicMaker5376 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous response. I think my young friend will learn the ropes now, and persist in posting as is deemed appropriate. WriterWench 10:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand i might have been abit harsh, but to remove the information from the article and putting a reason for editing, and then having everything put straight back into the article is what annoyed me. Im sorry if he was hurt by the way I did it, but by looking at any musical theatre article on wikipedia he would know that not every production needs a full song/character list with lots of repeated information.Mark E 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Musical infoboxes - comments, please

I noticed someone listed the film Gigi in the infobox included with the article for the stage production, so I removed it. I feel the only productions that should be listed in a musical theatre article are stage productions, not film versions. Shouldn't we be keeping theatre separate from film? Just my opinion - ConoscoTutto 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the film version of a musical should not be noted as a "production" in the infobox for the musical, since the film is not a "production" of the musical, it is a different version. Especially since we seem to agree that the film versions of musicals should have their own articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC) . . . Clarification to my earlier comment: I *do* think the film should be mentioned briefly somewhere in the article, with a cross reference to the film's article, using the "main" tag, but I don't think it should be given too much discussion, since it should be thoroughly discussed in its own article. So, what I mean to say is that we are only discussing whether or not to list the film as a "production" in the infobox itself. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we covered this earlier. Why shouldn't films be listed in the infobox? They are, in fact, productions of the musical. When looking at the musical as a literary work, the films deserve as much attention as the stage productions, don't they? It's a different medium, but it's not as if the link goes to Independence Day (film). —  MusicMaker5376 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this was not adequately covered earlier. We have two votes not to include them, and one to include them. Comments please, everyone - we need a consensus here. -- Ssilvers 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think films should be counted as productions of musicals. Musical films are adaptations of the original book and score and much of the script (stage directions etc) are not used in films adapted from a stage musical. Docta247 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said of revivals. Are we not to include them, either? —  MusicMaker5376 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if we are considering a "production" as a staging of the show, then major revivals definitely should be included, but I still vote against including the film versions. If the film versions deserve as much attention as the stage productions, they have their own articles (and usually have at least a passing mention in the theatre article). If we list films in musical theatre infoboxes we're mixing two different mediums. These articles belong to the musical theatre project, not the film project, right? ConoscoTutto 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[snip]We have now three votes for excluding musical films from infoboxes on (non-film) musicals articles and one vote for including them in the box. Come on, we have a couple of dozen members.... -- Ssilvers 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that they SHOULD be included in the infobox. They don't have to be mentioned in detail in the article, but I would suggest that it is disingenuous not to include them as a production in the infobox. It seems to me that the distinction between seeing a musical at the theatre and the same musical in a cinema is rather artificial and (dare I say it) a little snobbish.

Docta247 mentioned above that films are merely adaptations and have little stagecraft in common with the original stage production - the same is pretty much true of most revivals (the upcoming London revival of Rent, for example, will have pretty much nothing in common with the original Broadway production but the songs). Should such revivals not be counted? On the other hand, certain musicals (The Producers, I'm looking at you) appear to have been filmed by a director setting a camera at the front of the dress circle to film a stage production as is. Like it or not, the film is likely to be the version that most people associate with the musical (Grease, for example), and mention of this MUST be made somewhere in the infobox. If you don't want to include it as a production in its own right, perhaps an optional "adaptations" field could be added?

The raison d'être of the infobox is to easily present all the important information about the musical. Surely that includes the fact that it was made into a film?

Just my 2 cents - Dafyd 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Musical films

Musical films are included in our scope. —  MusicMaker5376 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have suspected that of something called WikiProject Musical Theatre. Thank you for the clarification, although I personally don't think musical films should be included in a project labeled musical theatre. ConoscoTutto 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[Amended:] ...we defer to the Film project regarding film article structure, however, and musical films use the film infobox. -- Ssilvers 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that musical films should not be included in our scope. I don't know why they are. —  MusicMaker5376 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objection to removing them from our "scope" statement. In general, I don't think we tag them anyway. Of course, many of us are interested in musical films, but that doesn't mean they have to be part of the project. -- Ssilvers 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the original discussion of whether or not to include them occurred here. It seems to me that the consensus was to not include them in the scope, then farther down you'll see the section "Scope" where the editor who supported keeping them edited the scope section and left them in and was never called out on it. —  MusicMaker5376 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I corrected the scope note. -- Ssilvers 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

• 28 August Edit:undo (PROD by User:207.162.58.3; "...a new musical comedy for the digital age, is a full length student-written musical about high school.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I came across this peccadillo when I was infoboxing and was torn as to whether or not to delete it. It is a show written by high school students, for high school students, but it premiered at the Kennedy Center. To me, that was enough to establish notability, so I left it alone. I am fundamentally torn about it, so I'm inclined to leave the PROD, at least for now. If another member of the project feels strongly about its inclusion, they can remove the tag. Personally, I don't think this is a candidate for PROD, as it does assert notability. An AfD should be required to determine if it actually is notable, but I will leave that for future editors to determine. —  MusicMaker5376 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is another similar article at Senioritis (musical). —  MusicMaker5376 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Senioritis is fine because of the references and its also being made into a film Mark E 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

Afd

After reading the article above, I found High school musicals, which I don't actually think is anything. I've AfD'd it here. —  MusicMaker5376 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Supported! What a pointless article. Nice find! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

We have three votes for a COTM. How shall we get it started? -- Ssilvers 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wild Party and The Wild Party

I just got finished creating a stub for the Lippa Wild Party and a somewhat fleshier stub for the LaChiusa version, based on forks from the poem article. I also fixed the disambig page to reflect the change. I am ready, willing, and eager to get to work on the LaChiusa, which I actually saw back in 2000 and which I have a lot of reference material for. I'll be doing that in the next couple of days. The Lippa version, however, is very unknown to me, so anyone who can work on that would be greatly appreciated. Also, both pages need images and people to figure out which categories and addt'l templates need to be added (I'm a writer and editor, but formatting is definitely not my strongsuit.) Of course, I'm not claiming ownership either way, but if anyone has an equal affinity for both projects, it would be less duplication of effort if he/she focused on Lippa while I flesh out LaChiusa. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NIIICE! One of my major pet peeves has been this very issue! Both articles look good, bear in mind that stub tags go at the bottoms of articles (but I wouldn't classify either as stubs). I'm not sure what the alphabet is doing down there, but I'll check it out.... —  MusicMaker5376 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards format

I've seen two ways so far to discuss the major awards won on individual articles. One way lists in prose the major awards won and any that were nominated, while another uses a table format. I was just wondering if there's been any consensus on which format is preferable. Unfortunately each has merits the other lacks- the prose form can go into detail about why it was nominated, why people think it lost or won, etc, but is not an at-a-glance format. A table is basically just a list and lacks nuance, but it's easy to refer to. Which are we officially preferring here? ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 23:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been discussions, but nothing's been formalized. I think a brief mention of the MAJOR major awards bear inclusion in the lead, but I think the list at the bottom is also acceptable. I would think that the more recent shows lean toward the list at the bottom, just because of the more accessible information regarding them. As long as too much of the information doesn't get repeated, I'd say that both can be acceptable. —  MusicMaker5376 23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If by "why it was nominated" and "why people think it lost or won" you mean according to the opinions of Wikpedia editors, that would constitute POV and wouldn't be allowed. I feel if a work won the Tony as Best Play or Best Musical, it should be defined as "Tony Award-winning" in the opening sentence, but the rest of the awards should be in a list. I have found a lot of redundant information in theatre, film, and television articles and it's usually a mention of awards and nominations in multiple places. ConoscoTutto 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally if a musical won the Best musical Tony, that gets mentioned in the intro, but not in the first sentence. I think it is confusing to just say "Tony Award-winning". It is clearer if we first note who wrote the piece and what it is based on; then, as part of the "notability" discussion, we simply say that it won the Tony for Best musical, or won 6 Tonys out of 11 nominations, or some other description of its most notable awards in one phrase. Then, at the bottom of the article, we can list out all the Tony nominations and awards. Note that the Infobox will say if it won the Tony for Best musical. -- Ssilvers 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ssilvers regarding putting it in the first sentence, partly because it muddies up a clean intro and partly for the reason I always get the giggles when a movie trailer voice-over announces "starring Academy Award winner Ben Affleck" (sure, it's true, but he didn't win because of his acting). In other words, it can mean too many things. I vote that we describe in prose the awards won and then put an infobox at the bottom. And no, ConoscoTutto, I didn't mean "according to the opinions of wikipedia editors"- why would you assume that? I mean according to the opinions of reputable sources who can be cited in the article, just as we cite the opinions of reputable sources in every other Wikipedia article. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you both read the short guideline at WP:LEAD which supplies, I think, a good discussion of what info is needed in introduction sections. I like to start with the name of the show; who wrote the music, lyrics and book; basis (novel, film, etc.); One or two sentence plot teaser (to be fleshed out in the "Synopsis" section below). Then, in a second paragraph, a very short summary of the most notable productions (to be fleshed out in the "Productions" section below), noting the most notable info about awards, stars, unique attributes of the work, such as, was it the longest-running show in history, did it have live elephants on stage, did it win Best Musical, or a lot of Tonys, or get nominated for 10 but then not win any, or anything else really unusual, which information will be discussed in more detail in the appropriate section below. All of this is suggested by WP:LEAD. Our goal is to raise all articles to at least "B" class and, ultimately, to WP:GA and then WP:FA class. -- Ssilvers 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to note that both Chris and Conosco are adding a lot of good content to the project, and I'm glad that both of you are contributing. It is hard to standardize the "style" of a bunch of different editors who all have our own different experiences, etc., but if we are respectful of each other and willing to compromise, I think we can all make a lot of progress on improving musical theatre coverage in Wikipedia. Please note (in addition to the other tasks on the "To do" list) that there is a Collaboration of the Month page in the project, and this month's collaboration is an attempt to improve the "Stub" class articles beginning with the letter "A" from Stub to at least "start" class. In most cases, they need plot synopses, historical background info and critical reception. If anyone has (or has ready access to) the Ganzl book, we could really use your help there. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do have copies of the 1994 two-volume Encyclopedia (and believe me, I had to jump through hoops to get the damn things), however, I am currently working a day job which limits me to the occasional web research, and precious little time at night, so I probably won't be able to crack them until the weekend. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 21:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush. Any help over the weekend on synopses would be appreciated. in the meantime, in some cases a web search will yield the needed info. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the format cited by Ssilvers, "in a second paragraph, a very short summary of the most notable productions (to be fleshed out in the "Productions" section below), noting the most notable info about awards, stars, unique attributes of the work, such as, was it the longest-running show in history, did it have live elephants on stage, did it win Best Musical, or a lot of Tonys, or get nominated for 10 but then not win any, or anything else really unusual, which information will be discussed in more detail in the appropriate section below": I find that too many Wikipedia articles, no matter what the subject matter is, tend to repeat information, and following this format will do just that. I'm curious why you feel it's necessary to mention details, data, facts, and figures twice? Thank you.

Chris, in my earlier comment, I didn't "assume" anything, I was just asking for clarification of what you meant, and you gave it to me, so thank you. ConoscoTutto 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ssilvers, but my own reason for performing a format as outlined by her is based on a standard journalistic technique known as the "inverted pyramid." Though this style is best known for newspaper (and sometimes magazine) articles, I've noticed many times that old-fashioned encyclopediae also seem to use it. Basically, the impetus behind putting a condensed form of information up at the top of an article (info that may well be repeated earlier) aids the reader in A. Getting the "soul" of an article in a brief amount of time without necessarily having to read all ten pages of details and B. Determing whether he/she actually cares enough about the story to continue reading. As long as the repeated info is not repeated verbatim, and is incorporated organically into a piece, I think this method is preferable, because it allows different types of readers to get precisely what they are looking for from an article.

Also, avoiding that kind of repetition to stringently leads to another dillemma. If we really want the information easy for a casual reader to find without resorting to occasional reiteration, the best way of presenting the info by far would be simply to use tables and infoboxes. However, most people agree that that makes for a lousy encyclopedia article. And, if we DON'T repeat certain info in more than one format or section, those who come to the article looking for one specific detail may well find themselves having to read the whole thing until they find what they're looking for. That's my take on it, anyhow. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a published writer, I'm familiar with the "inverted pyramid" technique. However, what WP:LEAD suggests goes well beyond the concept. It expects a LOT of information to be delivered early in the article and then expanded further in, which is not what newspaper/magazine articles generally do. Personally (and I may be wrong), I think anyone looking up any subject on Wikipedia, no matter what it is, is interested enough in the topic to read the entire article. Don't you think the average reader comes to the site to research a specific subject rather than casually browse? ConoscoTutto 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa- I know that you're a writer, but thought you might be a features writer or that others participating in the conversation might not be familiar with the concept. Better to elaborate at first rather than use jargon and confuse people later, no? To answer your question- honestly, no, I don't think the average reader comes to research a specific subject. Assuming there is actually "an average Wikipedia reader," I think there's a large cohort of people who come to Wikipedia because they hear a reference elsewhere, and, not understanding it, go to Wikipedia first to check it out; or, they simply have a quick question to answer, like, "I thought The Wild Party was written by Lippa, but people keep referring to the LaChiusa guy," and, voila, they go to get an answer in the first graf. Moreover, hypertext/wiki format is really designed for casual browsing- I know that it is very easy for one to intend to look one thing up and then end up clicking on many more links within the article with no intention of having read them initially (which is actually how I came to edit the Drood article in the first place and then found myself on the WP:Musicals project). A strong before-the-jump summary is a good thing for the articles, regardless of whether the info gets repeated in differennt form later. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that WP:LEAD recognizes that a lot of readers just want two or three paragraphs giving a quick understanding of the article before they decide whether or not to invest time in the rest. Of course, in a "start" article, there is not that much material, so the lead is less crucial, but as articles are expanded to B-class and better, they get longer and need a good intro. Read one of the WP:FA class articles on Wikipedia, and you'll see that the best articles, that thoroughly treat their subjects, get long and have a lot of sections. So a good, efficient intro, followed by the Table of Contents really helps the reader. Indeed, even in articles that I look at frequently, I often only need to look at the intro to find the information I need. So, even when an article is only a "Start" class article, it is time to begin writing a good Lead that gives the most notable information in summary form, and then to develop that information in the main sections below as time permits. It's just like an Executive Summary in a business paper - it gives a brief view of the main topics covered, and then they are developed more fully later. It's not repetition; it's just good expository writing. -- Ssilvers 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Miracles

I can't find any information about this Joseph Stein musical anywhere. Does anyone know for a fact if he ever completed the project? If he did, was it ever produced anywhere? If not, should it be included in his template? Thank you. ConoscoTutto 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it either. I'm going to delete it from the template. Good catch! -- Ssilvers 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be), this is an uncompleted work. I think the collaborators were major players in the musical theatre pantheon (love that phrase...), but the names are escaping me at the moment. (I want to say Cy Coleman, but don't quote me.) I can't remember where I got this information, or, really, if I'm even applying it to the correct title, but let me do a little more digging before we dismiss it entirely. —  MusicMaker5376 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter who was involved, if the project was never completed, does it warrant an article? ConoscoTutto 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it might be in development. See this bio. Apparently it's a collaboration between Stein, Schwartz, Hamlisch, Shire, and Harnick. I also found this one, where the set designer is said to be designing sets. That program is 5 years old. I dunno. With all of those names attached, I would say that it's notable for NOT happening.... (If we can find out why....) —  MusicMaker5376 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I dunno. I wish I could find whatever I had seen that made me include it in the template. I don't think two separate people would make up the same lie in their bio, but who knows? It's not on Stephen Schwartz's site. I wonder what the deal is.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting, but is there enough information to write a real article about it? If not, maybe it should just be mentioned in the bio articles for the people involved in the project. A lot of musicals were considered by major musical theatre writers that never got off the ground. -- Ssilvers 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, unless a project actually is produced somewhere notable, it doesn't warrant its own article, but I agree that mention of it in the creative team's individual articles would be appropriate if it could be cited properly. ConoscoTutto 22:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with that opinion: there are major shows that, for one reason or another, fall apart on their road to a major production. The Baker's Wife is my favorite example -- written in '76, save for a failed 1990 West End production, it was largely unproduced, even though just about every major musical theatre diva recorded "Meadowlark" at one time or another. There are a couple of others that made it as far as a cast recording and base their entire fanbase on that recording. I don't think that failing to achieve a major production is necessarily grounds for NN. IMHO, you need to take more into account than just that fact.

As for the subject at hand, I'd say that until we can find out ANYTHING about it other than the fact that it may or may have not existed, for now it can be left off the template. I'll try to do some more digging and I'll see what I can find. —  MusicMaker5376 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. If it never progressed past a workshop production - or the printed page - it's not notable. If it's only a passing mention in someone's program bio, it's not notable. If it's a work-in-progress (with no guarantee it will see the light of day), it's not notable. I would consider anything mounted in the West End, failed or not, to be notable. Likewise, a Broadway-bound production that closes out-of-town is notable. As long as it was produced professionally, it was notable, and therefore warrants an article. Please keep in mind these articles must satisfy not just a musical theatre project wish list, but general Wikipedia standards, as well. ConoscoTutto 00:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then we are in general agreement. —  MusicMaker5376 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)