Talk:Bye Bye Birdie

Sequel

Apparently, there was a very unsuccessful sequel: http://www.theatredb.com/QShow.php?sid=s0144 It was called 'Bring Back Birdie'. Could make a bit of interesting trivia

Link Disamb.

"Some praise the movie as a classic example of 60's camp" If anyone knows the specific article that camp should link to here, could you please change it in the article? Thanks! --Hetar 00:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeero trivia

I've just removed this line of supposed trivia -

Although still slightly unknown, the quasi-famous drummer known only as Xeero (pronounced Zero), provided drums for a production of Bye Bye Birdie.

Really doesn't seem notable if an unknown drummer played in an unspecified production. I've Googled 'Xeero drummer' (which also returns results for 'drums' and 'drum') and only received a list of 17 results, the top one being this Wikipedia article, most of the rest being user accounts on several forums and a blog.

If someone does have a source for this information that proves its notability then please add it back (with a rewrite) and a link to the info. Kineticpast 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Songs for TV Film

I changed the titles of the songs that were new to the Jason Alexander film. It used to have titles that were from the Broadway play. Also, the train scene IS from the Broadway play, so I deleted the line that said it wasn't. ZimZimmah 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Corrected vandalized accreditation to Dick Van Dyke. Slampaladino 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary Expansion

I'd like to expand the plot summary to include more details and song placement. The movie might even warrent its own section or article; even though the basic story is the same, the sequence of events and songs is quite different. If no one minds, I'll at least begin work on the plot summary.MarianKroy (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! The film needs its own article: Bye Bye Birdie (film). However, if you copy info to a new film article, you also need to click on the "what links here" link at the left of your screen and transfer the links that are relevant to only the film article. Let me know if you need help with that. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the plot summary; I'll begin the film article as soon as I can.MarianKroy (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks for all the work you're doing to improve the musicals articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This article is getting close to C-class. It just needs some information on the critical response to the major productions, and some references in the film/tv and cultural impact sections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Act One out of order

Act One is out of order. I'll work on fixing the order sometime... Maybe... ajl772 Ajl⁷⁷² 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--edit: the whole movie is out of order... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl772 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--edit2: nevermind... i can't read.

Continuity error

I'm watching this now and just noticed a little continuity error. In the scene early in the movie where all the girls are gabbing on the phone, one of the girls has a princess telephone. The film is supposed to be staged in 1958, but the princess (at least according to [1] wasn't introduced until 1959. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Birdie (musical) → Bye Bye Birdie — The article was controversially moved to the current location recently without discussion or consensus. The musical is the primary topic and a dab page for two articles is not necessary. Aspects (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mark E (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed.-the movie is also well-known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.17.246 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The musical was the first to be produced, and should be considered primary.JeanColumbia (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- J. Van Meter (talk)
Agreed - though the fact that the eponymous musical came first does not make it more primary than the film. The musical is only the primary topic because it is most associated with the name Bye Bye Birdie while the film is less well-known. Dab lead enough for two articles, obviously --Jubilee♫clipman 09:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose personally, I think of the film first. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trivia section

The completely unreferenced Trivia section is dragging down an otherwise pretty good article. Can anyone dig up the refs? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Act Two synopsis

This section needs to be corrected. "A Mother Doesn't Matter Anymore" is mentioned as being in the second act. I believe it was written for the TV version, not the Broadway production. There may be other errors as well. --The News Hound 03:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. I think those in support have made a good case that the musical is meets the long-term significance criterion to go along with their numerical majority. In addition, even if this were to end as no consensus, the articles would be moved anyway to restore the previous RM result. Jenks24 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, all the other pages got the name from the musical. The film might be well known, but it is based on the musical, and the consensus in that case is that the musical is the primary topic. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC) JDDJS (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've asked for a histmerge of the disambiguation page, as it was cut and pasted to the current location. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE the histmerge has been completed. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarytopic claim. Leave disambig. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the musical is not the primary topic? If that's what you're saying, what about the fact that the movie only exists becasue of the musical, and the fact that in the last month, the musical had over a thousand more views than the film? JDDJS (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Many things are more notable than their namesakes. It's a matter of real-world statistics mostly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's the percentage difference in pageviews? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Page views tell us nothing about a DAB'd page vs. a non-DAB'd one, because we can't know how many hits for the plain title were intended for some of its other meanings.
Support. The musical is the most important topic. How important is it? So important that they made a movie of it. Since the movie is merely an adaptation of the musical, its existence supports the primacy of the musical as the topic of greatest historical significance. bd2412 T 15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The stage musical is clearly the most obvious topic here, as well as being the progenitor of most of the other BBB-related pages. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of primacy evidence (not the same as originality): The "important" stuff above is misconstruing the WP:PRIMARY analysis completely. No evidecce has been posted regarding the relative notability of the various topics udner this name. Being first isn't always being most notable. An enormous number of notable films are based on non-notable or less notable earlier works (often short stories), for example. Primatcy is not determined by any kind of "how many knocks off did it lead to" rubric. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a fair point. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC says: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Out of the possible meanings, I think we can agree that the TV episode names are obscure, and the significant options are the musical and the film. How enduring are these? Some films have seemingly unending historical influence, like Citizen Kane and Casablanca, while others, even those that are critically acclaimed blockbusters at the time of their release, are not thereafter widely referenced to as milestones or genre-makers or the like. Aside from being ranked in the bottom half of an entertainment magazine's list of the "50 best high school movies", I see little sign of an enduring mark left by the film. As to the musical, however, there seem to be a substantial number of productions continuing to be made at any given time. These are just from the past six months.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I would therefore suggest that the continued widespread production of the musical demonstrates its superior historic importance. bd2412 T 17:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Looking up a few blocks, I see that the first move proposed here was discussed and agreed on 4 years ago--was it never actually moved? If it was and then moved back, where's the discussion on that? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Schools around the country still perform the musical -- it was even revived on Broadway a few years back. But I don't think the film is anywhere near as influential as, say, the film versions of The Music Man, Hello Dolly, or Cabaret--broadway-to-film musicals that get mentioned a lot. I'm not even sure the BBB film is as significant as the film version of Sweet Charity. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So the page WAS moved and then someone just reverted it back a year later, in spite of the previous discussion? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I have notified the participants in the previous discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is an important and enduring stage musical that receives dozens of productions around the world every year and has done so for decades. It will continue to be produced by both professional and amateur companies indefinitely. It is the primary use of this title under both criteria in WP:PRIMARY: (1) it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term; and, (2) with respect to long-term significance, it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and move-lock to restore the prior consensus. More enduring significance. Red Slash 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As per support above Mark E (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The primary topic is a toss-up between Bye Bye Birdie (musical) and Bye Bye Birdie (film). Steel1943 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The musical won multiple Tonys, including Best musical, and is constantly performed in amateur productions around the country. The film was nominated for two minor Oscars, losing on both of them. Other than that, there is nothing that makes the movie any more notable than any other film. JDDJS (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The movie keeps getting older and older, while the musical keeps getting revived. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bye Bye Birdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905083021/http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1532588_1_0_,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1532588_1_0_,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bye Bye Birdie. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630085358/http://conwaytwitty.com/index.htm?id=9266 to http://conwaytwitty.com/index.htm?id=9266
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018203603/http://www.ibdb.com/productionreplacements.asp?ID=2199 to http://www.ibdb.com/productionreplacements.asp?ID=2199
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/132681
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0%2C6115%2C1532588_1_0_%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018203603/http://www.ibdb.com/productionreplacements.asp?ID=2199 to http://www.ibdb.com/productionreplacements.asp?ID=2199

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) 03:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bye Bye Birdie. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206191500/http://broadwaybeat.com/michael/mbswatsn.htm to http://www.broadwaybeat.com/michael/mbswatsn.htm

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) 03:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bye Bye Birdie. 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) 06:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on a book"

The introduction to this article mentions that the musical is "based upon a book by Michael Stewart." I think this is a misunderstanding. The "book" of a musical refers to the non-sung script. For example Wicked is based on a novel by Gregory Maguire, but the book of that musical was written by Winnie Holzman.

Per the rest of the article, Bye Bye Birdie is an original musical with its book written by Michael Stewart, not adapted from an existing novel. It is incorrect to describe it as "Based on a book." 174.108.105.15 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]