Talk:Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical)

Assessment

Musical theatre articles without a substantial plot summary should be considered stubs. The article is also missing a list of musical numbers, critical reaction, any analysis of text or score, and numerous other sections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Only add major market productions, here, that have ALREADY OPENED"

Ssilvers, you say, "This is the usual rule. Please let me know where else people have listed productions prematurely."

I agree it's the usual rule, but this article does not follow it. You can't add this rule to the article without removing the text that oppose the rule. Pick one.

I'm not an expert in this area, but I think major musical engagement announcements during pandemics are without precedent, so you won't find many other examples. But 101 Dalmatians (2021 musical) is one such. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the hidden comment is *in* the infobox and refers only to the infobox, so this article does follow it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly referring to the line immediately following the comment in the infobox, about the premiere location. Which, due to an error, was not being displayed. But I take your point that the comment was not referring to that. Although…well, now the current state seems…odd. I dunno. jhawkinson (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to remove the workshop info from the infobox. After the West End production opens, we will add the production: 2021 West End, as usual, and remove the workshop production altogether from the Infobox. BTW, I think it is very likely that the opening (and most theatre openings) will be rescheduled again, for later in 2021 after there has been widespread distribution of the vaccines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's On Stage Awards

I suggest that this edit be reverted -- We should list the Olivier Awards, but not the What's On Stage Awards, which are audience-voted awards. I don't think we should list all the minor awards, except in separate list articles that purport to have a complete list of awards. What does everyone think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

A user called TravBrady moved/renamed this article to (2021 musical) instead of using the composer name. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TravBrady This strikes me as a bad idea. Unlike films, we generally do NOT name musicals by year, since a musical can be written in one year, published in another, have a concept album in another, premiere in another, be broadcast in another, and then be revived over and over, with the most important production not necessarily being the original production. I suggest returning it to "Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical)". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem Cinderella (Rodgers and Hammerstein musical) has been moved too. I would support you in returning both to their original names.Mark E (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the two articles back to their original titles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title and WP:CRYSTAL

This article was recently moved from Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical) to Bad Cinderella by Jasonbres. The WP:CRYSTAL guideline is very clear about content with the result that an article about Bad Cinderella would be deleted until after the musical with that name opened (and assuming it satisfied WP:N which, in this case, of course it will). There is some wiggle room that might allow an early creation if there were exceptional circumstances that meant reliable sources wrote about the significance of Bad Cinderella before it opened. That does not include the usual publicity and reproductions of press releases that accompany any expensive project.

I'm not sure what to recommend given the fact that this article about an existing and notable musical has been moved to the title it might have if the project proceeds as planned. I have asked for opinions at WT:WikiProject Musical Theatre. On the one hand, standard procedure would be to stick with the WP:CRYSTAL principle and restore the original title. On the other hand, apparently Lloyd Webber is behind the planned production so that gives it legitimacy and leaving the article at Bad Cinderella might be simplest. Opinions? Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The musical has only been produced, so far, in the West End under the title Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cinderella, I believe that the move was premature, per WP:CRYSTAL, and I further think that, per WP:NAMECHANGE since, the musical's original production, in London, was under its original title, it probably would not be correct to change the title even after a second production opens under that title, unless and until most commentators and historians decide whether to call it by the original title or the new title. Indeed, there could be subsequent productions that choose the original title. In any case, I'd revert to the original title at least for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq please revert back immediately as an unauthorized, undiscussed move with no consensus and no rationale. And, might I add, a full 70% or so of Lloyd-Webber's "planned" or "announced" projects or productions never see the light of day, so I'm not even sure we should even mention the title "Bad Cinderella" in the article until it actually starts rehearsal. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groan, I was hoping to avoid the hassle! I'll start on reverting the move now. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the move and edit-conflicted a change to the article to restore the pre-move text. Please carefully check. Now I will look for the navbox and other links. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think between us we have now undone that editor's related edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished cleaning, I hope. If anyone is in the mood, you might check my recent contributions. As a record for any future title changes, this is what happened:

Various minor recent link changes have been restored.
Navboxes Template:Andrew Lloyd Webber and Template:Cinderella point to Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical).
Broadway theatre and Imperial Theatre still have wikitext [[Bad Cinderella]]—seems reasonable.

Any future change of the title must wait until a formal move discussion reaches consensus on a new title. See WP:PCM. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned out the erroneous mention on Broadway theatre: [1]. At this moment there are no more inappropriate links to Bad Cinderella: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one of the 2 mentions of it in Imperial Theatre, as it is not yet a "notable production" there. BTW, User:Softlavender, I would leave in the section about the planned production, unless the production is cancelled -- They have engaged a theatre and announced an opening date, so, it's at least worth mentioning at this point. But, as I said above, I wouldn't be in a hurry to change the name even after the B'way production opens, unless and until the journalists all use the new name, and everyone agrees that it is appropriate at that time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds on this one, although I think the correct time to move the page will be when the musical begins previews on Broadway, although the telling will be just how similar the production is to the original. There are a few different conventions already for Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals (he does love tinkering)

"By Jeeves, originally Jeeves...." (Renamed article)

"The Beautiful Game (musical)" (sometimes performed as The Boys in the Photograph)...AKA The Boys in the Photograph

Greatest Days is another such example of a renamed article before the new production has been performed.

I would imagine with Bad Cinderella that this will be the title for all such productions going forward. There was definitely a problem with marketing and name in London for how closely people associated it with the Disney Cinderella. Mark E (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the mention of Bad Cinderella on the Broadway theatre article should've been removed, though I see this has already been reverted. The table on that article already deals with WP:CRYSTAL issues by clarifying the status of unopened productions, as the note at the top of the table states: "An * after the opening date indicates that the listed show has not yet opened, but is scheduled to open on the given date at that theatre." It would be WP:CRYSTAL to say that Bad Cinderella is already playing at the Imperial (which is wrong) or that the musical will be staged at the Imperial (which isn't a given). However, the table only says that Bad Cinderella is scheduled to be staged at the Imperial, which so far is correct.

The same thing applies to Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Epicgenius. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two productions were listed in "Current productions" and were added by a clueless IP who apparently thought and listed Bad Cinderella as having opened in March 2022. I have re-removed both productions from the "Current productions" list. If someone wants to add them to the section titled "Upcoming productions", by all means do so. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title (II) and WP:RECENT

Now that the production has begun Broadway previews, and from reading from those in attendance that it is the “same” show with changes made under this new title, I believe the article should now be renamed “Bad Cinderella” Mark E (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if another revival happens under the original title? I think the original London production, since it is the original production and already ran a year, is more important than this revival in New York (and I am a New Yorker). If this production runs for, say, 2 years, tours, and looks like the final name of the show, we can always change it then, and in the meantime, a redirect from Bad Cinderella takes you here anyhow. So, I disagree. See WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what if indeed, however, Andrew Lloyd Webbers official website now only lists “Bad Cinderella” and not “Cinderella”. https://www.andrewlloydwebber.com/the-shows/. The old twitter account points you in the way of the new “Bad Cinderella” account. I guess precedence for an ALW show would be By Jeeves, retitled from Jeeves in its original outing. It’s a good example of how the article has been renamed yet still keeps information relating to the original outing intact. Thinking ahead to awards season and potential nominations, I believe that either the article does needs to be renamed, or a new article be made under the name Bad Cinderella until such a time it should be merged in. Time may prove me wrong, but I do believe every future iteration of this show will be under the new “Bad Cinderella” branding. Mark E (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think WP:RECENT, and its suggestion for considering such issues under a WP:10YT should prevail over the urge to keep changing things according to the most recent whim. I think By Jeeves is actually a good example of why *not* to change the title for now. By Jeeves had a very short first run and has been called By Jeeves over a period of decades, with many subsequent, more successful runs and never reverted to the original name or any other name. Thus, the new name passes the WP:10YT. We still call Holmes's great musical The Mystery of Edwin Drood (musical), even though its most recent production was titled simply Drood, for very good reasons, I think, including that it identifies it with its source material. Once again, searching will not be a problem during this year's awards season, as Bad Cinderella redirects to this article. Note, however, that I added the bold title Bad Cinderella to the opening sentence of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We shall agree to disagree, and therefore unless there are others who have an opinion I guess it can stay as is for now. I have changed the terminology from revived to produced, as a revival indicates something different, this is still a new musical ideal for the Broadway stage Mark E (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, "produced" is better. I welcome comments from others about the name of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ssilvers' rationale is reasonable, especially considering the timeline of Jeeves {which flopped), and the fact that Cinderella has already had an established one-year West End run. The Broadway production hasn't even opened. If it opens and has a long run and gets great reviews under the new title, then we'll revisit. In fact, if it gets outstanding reviews, we may want to change that subheader to "Broadway – Bad Cinderella" or something like that; and possibly anchor the redirect to that subsection. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception for Broadway ver

As reviews are coming in (Variety, Observer, Bloomberg) for Bad Cinderella, should a separate section be created to separate the West End and Broadway version in the main Reception section? Also, I am kind of unfamiliar on how theatre articles are edited on Wikipedia, so should we wait for multiple reviews to come out then put it in this article or write as they're being published? Thanks! Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can add to the reception section without a new heading, I think. It would be better to wait for a day or two before writing the new section so that we organize the new part of the review section sensibly. What is clear so far, not just from the reviews seen in the Playbill article but elsewhere, is that the reviews are overwhelmingly negative. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, User:Harobouri, have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I’ll go ahead and read that. —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 06:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the lead

I'm planning on expanding the lead to include how the show has been received - from both the West End and Broadway versions, and maybe expand on the plot a little bit. Any thoughts? --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would we call Cinderella's opening in 2021 as the premiere for the show in both the lead and the infobox? --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the WP:LEAD needs much more about the plot, although there could be (i) a sentence about the major departures of Lloyd Webber's version from the classic fairy tail; and (ii) a more detailed section below (with appropriate references) that compares it with the classic fairy tail and the R&H versions. I have added a little to the Lead about the reception of the two productions, and I think it is probably enough for the Lead. The section below on the reception could be expanded a little, although it is not bad. The word "premiere" does not add anything and is greatly overused in Wikipedia. It is true that the London production was the premiere, but that word certainly should not go in the infobox, where it is crystal clear that West End 2021 was the original production/premiere. As far as adding the word to the Lead, I don't see how it would improve the article: The production had a very rocky start because of off-again, on-again covid closures, so I think the way we describe that is extremely accurate, and adding the word "premiere" would just disrupt the flow and protentially add confusion. Per WP:LEAD, a sentence could be added about the concept album. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]