Talk:Lorelei (musical)

Assessment

I'd call this a "start" class, since it has a brief synopsis and info on critical reception, as well as a little background on the production. I'll add an infobox. -- Ssilvers 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The original Broadway production, directed by Robert Moore and starring Carol Channing, ran for 320 performances" was very confusing, coming as it did immediately after the first paragraph, which refers to the 1949 production of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. It sounded like it referred to THAT production, so I deleted it. The information appears under production history. ConoscoTutto 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image! A "start"-class article needs to make an effort to comply with WP:LEAD. Stubs do not. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure WP:LEAD doesn't suggest confusing the reader. The sentence you added STILL sounds like it refers to Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, not Lorelei. ConoscoTutto 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at WP:LEAD. It says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I would say in this instance common sense dictates we make the occasional exception so readers aren't confused. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just looked at WP:LEAD again, and I really don't see where I'm supposedly wrong. I don't see anything that specifies exactly what must be in the lead. Am I missing something? Thank you. ConoscoTutto 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all confusing. It contains the word Lorelei. The problem appears to be that you do not wish to comply with the guideline. Now you are doing the same things that User:SFTVLGUY2 did before he was blocked. -- Ssilvers 22:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOW it containes the word Lorelei, but it DIDN'T at the revisions you made at [1] and [2], so please don't try to make me look wrong. I politely told you I don't see anything that specifies exactly what must be in the lead and asked you if I was missing something, and you responded very rudely. Why should I care about another editor? I'm asking you questions and you're arguing instead of answering them! ConoscoTutto 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I intended to make this change in the first place and unfortunately copied in the old language but did not notice the mistake. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am trying to answer your questions as best I can, but if you do not see that WP:LEAD requires more information in the intro, which must then be developed in the body of the article, then it is beyond my capabilities to explain it to you any more clearly than I have already done. I have repeated this to you many times now. I suggest that you discuss it further at WP:MUSICALS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorelei (musical). 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/20160216031810/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/on-the-record-sherry-and-lorelei-117806/P2 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/on-the-record-sherry-and-lorelei-117806/P2

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) 05:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]