Jump to content

Talk:Avenue Q/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Too long Synopsis?

The synopsis seems to go on for page after page after page, telling every single part of the show. Can we get something more concise in there, so people have a reason to see it?

I did some substantial editing/shortening and removed the {plot} tag from the main page, since I thought it had been cleaned up enough that the warning was no longer necessary. I'm sure it could use some additional polishing, though! Thatotter 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)thatotter

Well, that's certainly a big improvement! I combined some of the short paragraphs into longer ones. Sleep on it and give it another quick once over. I think it's pretty close now. -- Ssilvers 06:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

May 28th, 2006?

A second production of Avenue Q opened on September 8, 2005 in the Broadway Theatre, a $40 million, 1,200 seat venue built to house the production at the Wynn Las Vegas hotel/casino, which only lasted about nine months before closing on May 28th, 2006 due to poor ticket sales and building conflicts.

Um, as I write this, May 28 is a few months away. Why's this in past tense? Or are the years wrong? - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that myself reading though it, so I changed the original wording and added a reference. --Fxer 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Princeton's College

According to creator Jeff Marx, Princeton attended Cornell University, but Marx later decided that Princeton's college ought to be left unknown and that any rhyme with "swell" should not exist in a Broadway musical. It is unfortunate that I cannot find a citation for this, as I understand that this comment should not be in the article without verification. I attended a presentation by Jeff Marx and he made this comment. Princeton originally had a full verse in "It Sucks to Be You" where this comment was made.--Xtreambar 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Producer Jeffery Seller says in his Compact Broadway interiew that Princeton graduated from Princeton University.208.54.14.9 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Simulated puppet sex

...its adult content and "full puppet nudity" (including graphic simulated sex between puppets)

I love this. So the puppets don't actually have sex? Flapdragon 13:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)\

Being as though puppets do not have fully functional sex organs, I don't think they could actually have sex. Fllmtlchcb 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, the Princeton and Kate Monster puppets used in that scene stay under the sheets and you don't see whether or not they have "fully functional sex organs". Trekkie Monster stays in his apartment while having sex with himself. I don't know whether the puppets could actually have sex or not.208.54.14.73 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, this "full puppet nudity" thing cracks me up. Janet6 02:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Stockholm production, they aren't under the sheets, and are shown having sex in several positions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.55.94.35 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes but as the Kate and Princeton are puppets (not marionettes) they don't have too many body parts below the waist, GCW50 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In the original Broadway productions, you do see them in several positions above the sheets. And the Kate Monster puppet has breasts, so... ;) ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rod and Bert

In the character section, Rod is stated as a parody of Bert. Not only have I never heard this for fact, but I do not see any parody resemblance. At most, it seems subjective. Anyone have a citation or substantial evidence?--kubfann 02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's only inferred, but Rod and Nicky are adult versions of Bert and Ernie. Since Nikki and Ernie have not only the same basic look but voice actor as well, it can be said that Rod is most likely Bert. It's not a fact, more of an assured inference. Fllmtlchcb 10:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This was clear to me the very first time i listened to any of the songs, and since it is puppets, and the same actor, it's pretty much clear that it is indeed a parody. Josh 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd infer it from the way Rod laughs on "My Girlfriend From Canada", and the esoteric subjects he enjoys (1940s musical theater) from "If You Were Gay". 203.167.75.51 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this!

Even though I'm a relatively new editor (just 150 contributions old), I really think this is a solid article, and one of the best that WikiProject Musical Theatre has to offer. With that in mind, I am nominating it for featured article status. (Be Bold!) I do think it needs a little bit of work to actually get there, but not that much. A little attention is all it needs, I think. :) MrCheshire 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is hardly even close to FA status. I noticed you haven't offically nominated it yet, and I would suggest that you don't. It's got too much fancruft and not enough references. Try putting it through GA and PR first. — warpedmirror (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that's fair. I figured it was worth a shot, though. MrCheshire 04:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It need a lot of work. For example, the section headings don't even conform to WP:MoS. --Usgnus 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NOT the Venetian

Who the heck vandalized the page?! There are numerous news sources saying that Avenue Q opened up at WYNN LAS VEGAS, not the Venetian, and now the page says it was conceived for a hotel that it never even opened at! I'm fixing it right now, but I can't even understand the humor in it...it's just annoying!...


London Changes

This is original research, and thus can't be included in the entry, but when I saw the show in London on 13 September, there were some differences from what was listed here. Gary was still Gary, but his verse began "I used to be the cutest black kid on TV / I made a lot of money that my parents stole from me." He was also referred to as the "handyman" rather than the "superintendent."

One thing that may have been added to the London show was during the money collecton scene. Princeton remarks that they collected "a coin that says 'Euro' on it," and remarked that you can't buy anything with that. Considering the weakness of the Euro relative to the GBP, that seemed like it may have been an add, but as I never saw the show on Broadway, I can't be sure. Brad E. Williams 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Broadway version, the line is improvised by Princeton each night depending on what's found in the hat, so I imagine it's done similarly in London. When I saw it, he said, "Ooh, a MetroCard! I'll take that." --Birdhombre 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
When I saw it on Broadway, someone put their phone number in the hat, and Princeton said "I'll call for a good time." and then Foa pocketed it. XD Fllmtlchcb 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
He mentioned a MetroCard in the version I saw as well. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me someone has decided to type up an exhaustive and unencyclopaedic list of changes in the original London production. I really think that entire section should be removed and a sentence along the lines of: "Lopez, Marx and Whitty reworked the show with producer Cameron Mackintosh when preparing for the London production in order to bridge the cultural divides between some popular culture references and to update the show in general", which is basically a paraphrase of what Lopez and Marx have written in the Official London Souvenir Brochure on the topic of bringing the show to London (and thus can be cited as a source). 78.151.118.149 (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign productions

i wanted to know if the foreign productions in Sweden and other non-english speaking countries; are localised(lyrics translated from english to Swedish), or will they be produced in the original English language.--SamiKaero 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish production has translated book and lyrics according to the website -- 195.242.43.66 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish production's website has them singing in Finnish (or at least it's a language that I don't understand!) -- Ssilvers 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the show

There isn't any here, is there? There certainly are critical comments out there, for example that there's lots to like about the show, but most of it is in the first act. Lovingboth 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect criticism would be fine, but the Wiki-gestapo like to have criticisms cited from outside sources (regular media critics) and not "regular people". So if you want to put in something based on a media critic and cite it, I'm sure it would be fine. --Fandyllic 11:25 AM PDT 20 Aug 2007

The Internet is for Porn

Should this song have it's own page? I mean, it's the most popular song in the musical and that is how tons of people find out about it. Not to mention, all of the videos on YouTube. I really think it would be a good idea. The Quidam 00:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Closing in Vegas

The comment that the show was closed despite being profitable seems dubious to me, so I've requested a source. However, if the 65% number is indeed correct it is worth noting that the big attraction for a show like this in a Las Vegas casino is to draw customers into the resort who will then dine, shop, and gamble. The actual monetary profit from the ticket sales of show is to some extent superflous compared to the overall revenues of the resort. Seen in that light, a show selling only 65% of its seats, despite some profit, could go a long way towards explaining its closure.

Are all these external links really useful? Some should probably be weeded out. Also, I kind of expected a link to the claimed internet phenomenon "The Internet is for Porn" but there wasn't one. // habj 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, edit away. See WP:BOLD. -- Ssilvers 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

I have put some work in to this article, but it is still loaded with unencyclopedic information, POV and hardly relevant trivia, and much of the prose is poor. It desperately needs referencing. The plot summary is still too long. Facts are internally inconsistent. The cast lists full of non-notable actors should be cut down more. The last sections of the article about events, etc. are the worst. See Porgy and Bess for a Featured Article on a show that has good writing and appropriate length sections. -- Ssilvers 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I killed the CD tracklist. We have already listed the musical numbers above. Plus, we list, in gorey detail the differences between the Broadway songlist and every other version. -- Ssilvers 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to a question I received, Broadway and the West End are the main venues for English-language musicals. The Las Vegas production information should be slimmed down, and the Broadway production information could be expanded as to the genesis of the show and put into the same section as Background, with subheadings for the Broadway cast list and other Broadway-specific info, leaving just overview information (see WP:LEAD) in the introduction.

West End productions do not belong under an "International" heading. Full cast info is not notable except in London and Broadway (and even there, ensemble and swings really should not be listed, unless those actors are notable in their own right and have blue-links). Other casts should only discuss notable actors who are blue-linked. National Tour casts should certainly only mention major principal roles and any other notable actors with articles. See the WP:MUSICALS' "Article Structure" page for more suggestions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Article Structure vs. WP:Musicals' "Article Structure"?

I am concerned that the article content, despite recent updates, is not converging to the WP:MUSICALS' "Article Structure". The recommended article structure specifies a "Productions" section, not separate sections for Broadway and London (or Vegas or Sweden). Perhaps the WP:MUSICALS' "Article Structure" is flawed in this regard?

I agree that there could be a "productions" section. I'm just saying that the productions on Broadway and the West End deserve more detail than the others. -- Ssilvers 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the WP:MUSICALS' "Article Structure" is also flawed in NOT including full cast info for each production. This guideline would appear to violate the WP:NPOV as to what character and/or performer is "notable" and result in disputes. I don't have the history on how this particular item was included in the guideline. I propose that complete Production cast information is more important than saving a few lines of screen space. Since content in the WP:Musicals' "Article Structure" is limited to major professional productions, i.e. Broadway, London, Tours, International, including full cast information is appropriate to ensure the information on each production is fully referenced in the article. Feedback please....Lrettberg 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:N and WP:BIO. The object is not to "fully reference" all the information in the world about a show – the object is to select the most important information. Ensemble, swings and understudies for shows are just not notable. Someday, these people may become stars, but they are not now, and readers can click the link at the bottom of the page if they want to read their names. Casting information for actors in even small speaking or singing roles who are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles can be found in the external links. If an actor in the National Tour is notable under WP:BIO guidelines, he or she should have his or her own WP article, and then he or she should be blue-linked in the cast list. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and will wait for other perspectives as well. So we don't step on each other, will you be combining the various productions into a single section? Thanks, Lrettberg 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I'll let you and others consider the various changes I made and work on the article for awhile before I revist it. I do still feel that there is alot of non-notable, un-referenced fancruft in the article regarding the cut songs, the promotional events, etc. On the other hand, I think that the article is missing alot of information about the genesis of the project and the critical reception of the show that could be gleaned from reviews and references, if written well. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 12:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the linking consistent. Linked items are only linked the first time they are mentioned(I hope I found them all). I also shortened the character descriptions. I would like to combine the list of characters with the names of the original broadway cast. There are kind of a lot of lists and it makes the article look disorganized. Any thoughts? Thanks-Broadwaygal 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a mess to combine the list of characters with the original cast list, because you would have the description of the characters competing with the names of the actors. Plus, the character list is supposed to describe the characters for all productions of the show, whereas each cast list applies only to a particular production. I see four alternate ways to get rid of all these cast lists: One is to leave it pretty much alone, since we have deleted the most egregious listifying. Second, simply mention the notable actors together with the production details for each production in the narrative paragraph form. Third, someone could make a historical casting table such as appears in Iolanthe, for example. Last is to make a separate article just containing all the cast lists, such as the one linked under "See Also" at the Wicked (musical) article. -- Ssilvers 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you organized the article by putting the awards together and moving them down. It makes things look a bit more organized Thanks--Broadwaygal 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction should describe why the show is notable and include information about the show itself, as the audience sees it, rather than background info. It should also contain information that is an overview of the article, per WP:LEAD. I moved the background information about Henson into the "Background" section. -- Ssilvers 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant that the Henson info might not belong in the first paragraph. But neither does all that stuff about how the puppets are operated. What's important is that there are many puppet characters, and that the show is an adult version of Sesame Street. DS 17:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to put the stuff about how the puppets are operated in the Background section, but I thought it flowed better this way. I can tell you that, before I saw the show, I was curious about how they were going to work the puppets, so I think that for people reading the article to find out about the show, it answers some of the questions that many of them have. In Sesame Street and in "puppet shows", you generally don't see the actors working the puppets, so it is a very interesting feature of the Broadway show. While I was watching the show I was also very interested to see how one actor voiced a puppet that he or she was not holding at the time, sometimes from another part of the stage. This usually worked pretty well, except for one scene where Lucy the Slut and Kate Monster were both in the same scene. So, I think it is very helpful to explain it to the reader. But if you can think of a smoother way to do it, give it a go. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Referenced in LICD

Avenue Q has been used in a recent Least I Could Do webcomic strip. Link: http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20070530 Perhaps a cultural reference? Perhaps nothing. Either way

London Cast

Why was the information on the London cast taken out? The WikiProject Musical Theatre project states "For the original Broadway or West End production, there may be a cast list, with notable actors bluelinked, or the casting may be described in prose. Please do not delete such lists."

Will put it back in but will need to be cleaned up abit because im no good with wikipedia tools . (Mark E 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Internet is for Porn as an Internet meme

There's more than enough verifiability of the song as an Internet phenomenon, with many clips being created placing the song over reedited video game footage and even tying in with a real-life Internet meme, Ellen Feiss. The question was asked a few months back, but I think at the very least a section on this phenomenon should be added to the main article, if no one wants to give the song its own. 68.146.47.196 06:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppets section

Nice job to whomever added it -- I just edited it down a bit and moved it lower in the article. The only thing I couldn't figure out was this sentence in the double-rod section: "The switch which is on the single-rod puppets are not that common with double-rod puppets." There was no mention in the single-rod section about a switch, and I wasn't sure what this referred to, so I removed it. I have no objection to its inclusion, it just needs a corresponding sentence in the other section. —  MusicMaker5376 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast lists

I don't think we need all the cast lists in this article, starting with Manila, and I would simply mention the most notable cast members in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Movie Version

I came across some information where a movie version was mentioned as being in progress (towards the bottom of the page):

Movie Version Mention

Should an official mention be made on the main page, or would this not qualify as an official source? Thanks Starmiter (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, blogs should be avoided as sources. However, as this one is an interview with the creators of the show, it's probably okay. On the other hand, it only says that "Marx and Lopez are at work on the movie...". Just because they're working on it doesn't mean that it's been picked up by a studio or that it will ever get made. I would say to hold off on adding this information to the article until there is, you know, ACTUAL information: a studio being announced, a director, casting, etc.
If any other editors want to check this out, the mention is in the 3rd graf from the bottom, so scroll all the way down. —  MusicMaker5376 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

These sentences contradict each other: The next day, Mrs. Thistletwat calls: Kate has missed the morning class that she was supposed to teach. Mrs. Thistletwat then fires Kate, dismissing all monsters as lazy. Angry, Kate quits her job. No one can be fired and quit. So, which is it?PokeHomsar (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Actually, the sequence is, Kate is fired, and angrily shouts, "You can't fire me - I Quit!" so that's how it's both Starmiter (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My addition

Why did you remove what I'd written about Senia's blog? That law was a serious threat, you know. People started fearing turning into Iran II. Siúnrá (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A blog is not a valid source/citation.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Toronto show

Someone should add that Avenue Q is now running in Toronto from July 29 to August 31, 2008. 216.191.79.11 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Trekkie Monster is Kate's brother?

In the characters section, the article currently says that Trekkie monster "is the brother of Kate Monster." There's no source given for this, and it seems to contradict the show itself, since Kate gets offended when Princeton asks if they are related. Can someone confirm whether this is correct? 71.77.15.222 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kate never answers if they are related. She takes offense at the question, because it is racist, but doesn't deny it. The article is not plainly self-contradictory - but it is confusing, because there's no answer - at least not in the script. [OR: I don't think they're related.] Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
From the 'Everyone's a little bit racist' lyrics: Princeton: Are you two related? [...] Kate Monster: No, not all Monsters are related. (you can see it in http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/everyonesalittlebitracist.htm ). Jmpep (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Songs by the "Orchestra"?

Recently, somebody added a bunch of songs that are credited to being by The Orchestra. I removed them because they aren't official and somebody reverted them back. Rather than starting an edit war, I decided to start a topic on the talk page. Should those Orchestra songs really be there? I think they shouldn't because while orchestra music during scene transitions is in the play its self, they are not considerably "songs" per se and the titles seem made up by the user who put them there. 76.124.53.64 (talk) 4:50 PM, September 16, 2008 (GMT)

I'll claim credit for the revert. Thank you for not taking it personally! Editors who follow WP:AGF, WP:No angry mastodons and WP:1RR are in good shape. The reason I reverted it is because even though the songs are not on the Soundtrack, as anyone who has a copy, or access to Amazon, would know. However, they are still in the score. I am not sure what, in the titles, makes you think the names are made up. (Feel free to elaborate). In any case, I think that if we're going to remove them, we need to have a citation that shows that they are unofficial. The published soundtrack alone isn't enough. I think we should wait until we have seen the scorebook. If someone wants to use that as their source, and remove it (restoring your edit), that's fine with me. I am not permanently opposed to your edit, I just think it might be premature, and we need more facts in this discussion. Thank you for understanding. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Having just seen it last night I can also confirm that they are official songs some of which with their own lyrics although they are listed as orchestra in the program. They are not, as the anon IP who started this thread states, orchestral music being used during scene transitions. This scene transisitons are handled by the sequences shown on the TV screens. As Non Curat Lex mentions the fact that they aren't on the published soundtrack does not mean that they aren't accurate. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ideally there should be a source, either way, rather than our own OR. But as we seem to have arrived at the same conclusion, I'm glad you agree. (And I hope you liked it as much as I did!) Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to "For Now?"

Well, with Obama in office they're obivously going to have to change the Bush joke in "For Now." If anyone sees the show tonight or in the coming days please post how they changed it.

If they use the past tense, "George Bush was just-for-now," it's still accurate, and I think everyone will still get the joke. Or, perhaps, you could replace it with "prop 8" (if it passes), which also is hopefully just-for-now. (By the way, technically, this discussion is not WP:TPG, but I personally don't care.) Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


They're having a contest on the Avenue Q website on what to change the lyric to. So yes, it will be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiffy032 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I saw it in Hershey last night and they changed it to "George Bush WAS only for now". Fiffy032 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Was the same ('Was only for now') in London last night too. 94.193.9.40 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

During the 2010 U.S. they used "Glenn Beck is only for now" --Jcnegron (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to Lubbock, Texas

One of the main streets in Lubbock, Texas is named Avenue Q. Is this a coincidence, or is there a relationship here? If so, I think it deserves mention. Cazort (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Seriously? Non Curat Lex (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Check it out: [1] Cazort (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There is also an avenue Q in Huntsville, Texas. I sure there are thousands of Avenue Qs around the world. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Rod (Avenue Q)

There has been a "merge" tag at the top of this page for over nine months, and I cannot find a discussion topic for it anywhere. So I guess I'll start it here by saying that I think it's a good idea. I don't think the character is notable on its own, and an AfD nomination has already resulted in a "Keep," so I think a merge is a good solution. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 03:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, it seems to me that all the information in Rod (Avenue Q) is already in the main article, so I'm just going to re-nom it for deletion. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of changes in London production

As it was explained to me by the music director/pit conductor for the show on Broadway, the majority of the changes in this list actually originated in the Vegas production, and have since been incorporated into the Broadway production as well. I am working on refining this list in my userspace here. Please feel free to comment. As for sourcing, I recall reading an interview with John Tartaglia (the original Princeton/Rod on Broadway and in Vegas) talking about many of those changes being made for the Vegas production. I'll see if I can find it. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 04:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the interview with Tartaglia that I mentioned. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate alot of work has gone into these lists of changes but are they really necessary? Small things are changed from production to prouction of many shows, and most of the changes seem so insignificant that they belong on an avenue q fansite rather than Wikipedia. A general reader looking for information will not be bothered by single lines added/taken away/extra notes and what not. I think only the big changes such as Gary being a male in London/Female in NYC are actually needed...Mark E (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't completely disagree with you there. I think the fact that some of the songs had major cuts/makeovers, and the fact that the Act Two opening was changed completely, are also significant, but the individual lines and teeny changes to orchestrations are overdoing it. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Right have taken the majority out, and left in the most major changes.Mark E (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary Coleman's death

Does anyone know if the death of Gary Coleman has affected the show in any way? 188.222.192.130 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Some lines will be changed, but it'll still make fun of his career and financial problems, according to a co-creator. [2] Also, the Dallas production will have a segment acknowledging his passing. Where should we write about it, in this article? This is significant. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's an even better article than I first referenced. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Money Song" and BC/EFA

I'm the one who added that the money collected during "The Money Song" in the off-Broadway production is donated to BC/EFA, but have no way to cite the source. I work on the show, and it's my job to collect the money from the hats, that's how I know. How does one cite themself as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastWaltz (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question. I shall have to do some digging to find out. Hang on. TomBeasley (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a reference note that should be enough to support the information. TomBeasley (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Lyon repetition

I have absolutely nothing against Rick Lyon -- I just have an issue with saying at the top that he designed/built the puppets for the original run and most of the tours, and then repeating in every section that he built the puppets. If there were notable exceptions, list them, not the information we've already been given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I spent a significant chunk of time eliminating tons of redundancies a few months ago; there is no conceivable justification for adding new ones. I'll also mention that when I rewrote the article, I did in fact add the one "notable exception", the Italian troupe's puppets, designed by Arturo Brachetti. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Correction - the current production in Spain is a second exception, but that is also duly noted in the article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow - there is always so much silly venom about simple things. Okay, I'll only include him when other designers or creatives are mentioned. Surely, there can be no axe to grind there, right? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random21 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


You're right, we shouldn't list ANY designers or creatives over and over. Here's the guideline in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure for productions other than Broadway or West End: "The names of non-notable ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted...unless their names are important to an understanding of the musical and its history." So unless anyone can provide a convincing argument against following those guidelines, I'm going to follow them, and take out ALL repetitious listings of production team members. A fairly complete list of the Broadway team is appropriate, and when the team is essentially the same in another production, we can simply say it's the "same team", rather than listing everybody again. In specific reference to Rick Lyon, the article already says that he designed the puppets for all North American productions and most international productions; is that not clear enough? DoctorJoeE (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now we're talking! Logic! Common Sense! It's just crazy enough to work! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random21 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good -- since we seem to have arrived at common ground, and there has been no further input, I'm going to follow through on this. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the line that says that Rick Lyon built the puppets of "all North American productions and most international productions" because is vague, and as more international productions keep appearing, this is not longer true. I believe it's important to point out in which specific productions Rick was involved, because the quality and prestige of his work is at stake. The quality of the puppets has contributed to the success of the show. And Rick has distanced himself from those international productions where he has not been involved, specially since many of those productions have used lower quality and less visually appealing puppets.--Jcnegron (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you might have a neutrality issue on this point, n'est-ce pas? I personally have no problem with the changes you've made already, but others might suggest you supply a published reference or two to document your assertions. And if you plan to say anything about the "inferior quality" of non-Lyons puppets, or about Lyons "distancing himself" from certain productions, you'll certainly need to cite references to that effect. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Cast Table

I'm not sure when the touring casts were added to the Original Casts table, but I have to ask if others think it's appropriate -- especially after someone recently used it as license to add a column for the second UK touring cast, before that cast (or tour) has even been assembled! Touring casts are not considered notable enough to post in table form in other show articles, and not a single cast member of either the original US or UK touring casts is blue-linked. I'm inclined to remove them and stick with the two true (B'way & West End) original casts. Comments? DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment either way, in a few days I will remove touring casts from the Original Cast table under the *notability* guideline unless there is substantial opposition (and a good reason or two). DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Kate Monster, Prairie Dawn, Lucy the slut

Re. "Kate Monster is inspired by Prairie Dawn[citation needed]"

After this was tagged as requiring a citation, I checked into it, and it would seem that the character "Lucy the slut" is based on Prairie Dawn, rather than Kate Monster. This is supported by an article called "Award-winning Broadway musical 'Avenue Q' blends Sesame Street" which appeared in the Oakland Tribune, Aug 8, 2007. In a discussion with Rick Lyon, who designed and built the puppets, it says;

"In fact, Lyon has dropped his own sly homage to the children's television show with one of the characters, Lucy, the Slut. "It's my little in-joke," he says. "It's what if the Prairie Dawn puppet grew up and went on the wrong side of the tracks.""

This is online at findarticles.com, here.

I won't make the edit right now, because it would need a further source re. Cookie/Trekkie. Hence leaving this note, in the hope that it can be resolved in the future.  Chzz  ►  01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation

I recently edited the Instrumentation section which was reverted and I don't understand why it was that way because the reverted version is completely wrong as they're is no oboe in the pit and the sax, flute and clarinet parts are played by the same musician, so are the electric and accoustic bass, so are the guitars and the banjo, and the MD plays the keyboard. I'd like to discuss this issue with the reverter if he has extra information about that. My aim is to remove the current false information. Pvyncke (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 

I reverted it for the reasons given on the comment line: the current info is not "completely wrong", and your cited source was inadequate.
Here's what it says right now: "The musical is scored for acoustic and electric bass, drums, guitars, banjo, clarinet, alto sax, flute, oboe, and two electronic keyboards." If you are correct that there is no oboe, that is the only thing wrong, yes? Nobody cares who plays which instrument(s) -- every pit has somebody playing multiple instruments, so there is no notability there, and no reason to include it. If you agree that the only incorrect information is the oboe, you can take it out if you can cite a reliable source; as mentioned, blogs are not acceptable source material. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 22:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm positive there is no oboe in the Avenue Q pit, listen to the soundtrack or look at the score. As for who plays which instrument, I personally don't care and I'm sure many others don't. Why cut out information to the world because you don't care who plays which instrument ? Pvyncke (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
First point: You may very well be right -- but "I'm positive" is unfortunately not a reliable source. Tonight I'll dig out my Playbill (which is an RS) and settle this burning issue. Second point: I don't understand your question -- we seem to be in agreement; neither of us cares who plays which instrument, nor does the MOS, which lists it as a non-notable detail, so why mention it? Will get back later tonight on the oboe issue. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
My reliable sources are the soundtrack and the score. For the who plays what, my mistake, I meant I do care about who plays which instrument. And so do many other people here I'm sure. I personally don't care about Xá Lợi Pagoda raids yet it's today's featured article. So why is "You don't care about who plays which instrument" a good reason to not mention that ? Pvyncke (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You might wish to review WP:CITE and WP:RS. Here's a short excerpt from the former: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." So listening to the soundtrack is WP:OR, not RS. The score, if it is published, is a primary source -- not as good as a secondary one, but acceptable if you can cite the publishing details. The only published score I could find is scored for piano only; if you have one scored for all the instruments, by all means cite it.
As for who plays what, if you are sure that "many people here" care about that detail, let's hear from them; that's what consensus building is all about. I'm pretty sure very few people care whether the sax, flute and clarinet parts are played by the same musician or different musicians, and I base that opinion on the fact that no musical article in WP that I'm aware of specifies who plays what, nor do I see anyone clamoring for that information on the articles' talk pages. But if you can assemble a consensus of editors who want to see that information in the article, by all means, go for it. For the record, the show's Playbill program lists bandmembers but not specific instruments: keyboard/conductor, keyboard/associate conductor, reeds, drums, bass, and guitars. Perhaps the article should say that as well; would that be an acceptable compromise? DoctorJoeE talk to me! 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hearing or rather not hearing the oboe on the soundtrack is not a personal interpretation, it's a fact. Moreover, you don't have (and never will have) a source saying there's an oboe either. So you might wanna check your own sources as well before saying I got none.
For who plays what, I know many people care since many wikipedia articles already feature that kind of things. I might mention these scores : The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), The Flying Dutchman (opera), Boléro, and I'm sure I could find many more whose articles mention who doubles what in the instrumentation section. When I was just a music student I would also have gladly appreciated to have that kind of information at my disposal to be able to see what kind of doublings are usually chosen, and so on. I'm not saying the whole world cares, most people don't even know what a clarinet looks like, but in the music world, that kind of information is really interesting. Because you are not part of that world and don't care about who plays what doesn't mean the whole world is like you.
But all this is futile since I read you now agree with the orchestration I wrote on the article. So the best thing is to come back to my initial instrumentation section and erase your good faith mistakes. Pvyncke (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to keep this discussion civil. Apparently you're not interested in civility, but I'll continue to take the high road (sort of). (1) Your assumptions are interesting; wrong, but interesting. I am, in fact, a musician. An amateur, but a serious one, with 40+ years' playing experience; that counts, doesn't it? How long have you been playing? (2) Your examples are interesting too, since they illustrate my point rather than yours: The Phantom article says nothing about who plays what, and what it does say about instrumentation was written by me. Flying Dutchman is not a musical -- which means, I suppose, that you gave up looking for relevant examples -- and it also says nothing about who plays what. Bolero is not a musical either, and that mind-numbing instrumentation table not only says very little about who plays what, but makes the article even more boring than it already is. ("This is the worst page i've ever seen in Wikipedia", it says on the discussion page. I agree.) (3) When did I agree with the orchestration you wrote? I proposed a compromise, and you blew me off. Our job, as editors, is making articles accurate and interesting, not filling them with trivia. So let's stick with what is there, unless you can come up with a reliable source to back up the change you want to make. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: You're kidding about "...not hearing an oboe is fact" -- right? WP:OR states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, which refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." If a source doesn't say it, then neither can we, regardless of what you can or can't hear. By the way, I just replayed the sound track, and I don't hear a clarinet. Does that mean there isn't one? DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not about civility or non-civility, but if you can hear an oboe on the soundtrack and no clarinet, then I doubt your music capacities, but that's not the point, is it ?
My articles illustrate my points in the way that the phantom article indeed tells who plays what (it says what ww instruments each reed book requires). The flying dutchman and the bolero are just example I had in mind that required doublers, of course they're no musical but they still show that people are interested in who plays what. The flying dutchman shows that C and Bb clarinets are played by the same doublers. As for the Boléro : "Boléro is written for a large orchestra consisting of two flutes (second flute doubles another piccolo), piccolo, two oboes (oboe 2 doubles oboe d'amore), cor anglais, two B-flat clarinets (Bb clarinet 1 or 2 doubles on E-flat clarinet)". This clearly indicates who plays what.
The instrumentation from the playbill is exactly the one I wrote except that I developed the reed instruments list. So I don't understand your third point.
No I'm not kidding about "not hearing an oboe is fact". The soundtrack is published, you can get it on itunes or that kind of things, so what's the point ?
So your point would be to just leave mistakes on the article ? Ok, let's do that. I think I heard a bassoon in the last Rihanna's hit song. Gonna point it out on the related article. Pvyncke (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I admit I used kind of harsh terms and I regret I maybe over-reacted. But still, my point is, in musicals, most of the time, the musicians are not well treated by the audience, some don't even know there's a band playing live ! People don't care about the opening or the exit music, and that is kind of sad. That's why I think it should be shown on these wikipedia articles that musicals are not just about the singers and the actors (who also do a great job !) but there also are live musicians and doublers who do a great job mastering sometimes 6, 7, 10 instruments or so. I think that as a musician you must feel that too. So to my point of view, no, the instrumentation is not who-cares-trivia. This is just a little section talking about the music while there's a full section about puppet making, all the productions etc., don't tell me there's no room for that kind of information...
As for the oboe thing, I really don't understand... If there's a problem with the "is there a oboe, is there none ?" why do you really want to keep the oboe there ? I showed a source that told what instruments the reed book required, how is it not receivable ? Because it's a blog ? How is it different from a regular website ? Those guys do a great job referencing all the reed books from most of the shows. This is serious stuff, really... And if there's really a problem with that, why not just say "1 Reed book" ?
So, once again, sorry I over-reacted, but this is the kind of information I'd die for so when I have it, I feel like it has to be on wikipedia, even more when I have sources like those I showed. Pvyncke (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
My point -- once again -- is that editors are not permitted to do original research in WP articles. Listening to a sound track and rendering judgments about instrumentation is original research. You say the oboe is a mistake; I believe you; really, I do. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I believe. If a neutral published source doesn't say it, then neither can we, regardless of what you or I can or cannot hear. You'll need to find a published copy of the score. Or you can lump the reed instruments as reeds, as I already suggested, and cite Playbill as the source. Whatever. This is a detail simply not worth arguing over any further. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, is that enough : http://www.mtishows.com/show_detail.asp?showid=000321 ("Materials" Tab) ? Pvyncke (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure; much of the material on that site appears to be copied word-for-word from the WP article, which is not a good sign; they seem to be using us as a source, rather than vice versa. But nothing specifically tags it as unreliable, and I don't see any negative references to it within WP. I've made the change, let's see if anyone objects. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad we've found an agreement. I think this website is ok since they actually rent the license to play those shows. But yeah, let's see. Pvyncke (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Character list

I noticed that someone has sneaked in a list of characters in a separate section. The WP guidelines for movies & theatrical productions discourages this; they would much rather have the characters listed and described within the synopsis, as they already are in this article. So the list is redundant, on top of being contrary to WP guidelines, and I'm going to remove it shortly unless someone objects strongly and has a convincing argument for leaving it in. Cheers, DoctorJoeE talk to me! 16:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

On further review, I would add that the descriptions are poorly written and substantially inaccurate, which only strengthens the case for removing the section. In addition, the "doubling" subsection, which I guess is intended to illustrate that some actors operate two or more puppets, is very incomplete and makes no sense in this context. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 14:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to removing this section -- indeed, no discussion at all -- I am removing it, for the reasons stated above. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 15:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I have requested "Temporary semi-protection" because of today's persistent vandalism.Flami72 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, protected for 3 days!!Flami72 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that the vandalism has started again, today, January 16, 2016, at approx. 15:22. Flami72 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avenue Q. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avenue Q. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avenue_Q/Archive_1&oldid=1140131427"