Talk:Next to Normal

Next to Normal is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synopsis

Anybody want to attempt to trim that synopsis down? 69.40.241.217 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much okay the way it is. It's done in typical musical synopsis style, and synopses are genrerally supposed to be blow-by-blow, anyway, but in musicals (see RENT and Wicked for examples), they tend to be set up to explain the context of all the musical numbers. 70.33.157.137 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis is no longer current: the 2008 2nd Stage production is different in many details.

It was ludicrously long and, in any case, the wrong version. I have deleted it. Let me assure you that the musicals project has been working over the past couple of years to cut down the length of plot summaries of musicals. See our article structure guidelines. Synopses are NOT supposed to be blow-by-blow, but they should give the basic plot and briefly give the context of the songs. Shoot for 900 words or so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's gone, can the "cleanup" header get removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.69.59 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the synopsis has ballooned again.24.186.69.59 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current synopsis is 1203 words long which exceeds the suggested length of plot summaries. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Name

Anyone have information on the new name, "Next to Normal?"Bgedwards 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a line from the show: the daughter tells the mother says she doesn't expect the family to become normal, but she'll settle for 'next to normal'.24.186.69.59 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I don't think the workshop readings should go in the infobox. They're just not notable enough. Can we get a consensus on this one way or another? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Also, per this guideline, it's clear to me that the guidelines exclude workshops/readings from being listed in the infobox. See [[1]]. (I guess I'm more interested in this article than I thought I was!) JeanColumbia (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert

The term "Spoiler Alert" is no longer used on article plots, etc. See [[2]] for the reasoning and history.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

We need a critical reception section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer "controversy"

I think that the "Pulitzer controversy" section needs to be edited or removed as it is biased and not relevant to the topic at hand. 69.193.142.209 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree, it is relevant to the topic so why shouldn't it be included?Mark E (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't contribute anything about the show. The section would be better suited for the Pulitzer Prize page. McNulty was not complaining about Next to Normal- he was complaining about the Pulizter Board. 69.193.142.209 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well until it has had a proper discussion, it should remain in the article.Mark E (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it, because it's short, but putting it in its own section gives it WP:UNDUE weight. I'd stick it in the awards section or a "background" section. Also, it's not really a "controversy", it's just that some the committee received some criticism. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Is there a reason why it's sometimes "Next to Normal" and others "next to normal"? 69.137.130.101 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be written as next to normal, with all lowercase. That's how it's written on the CD case and that's the name it's listed under from the TCKTS booth in Times Square, which gets it's listings directly from the theatre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline239 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. If you go to the "About the Show" section of the official website you'll see that in the written text the title is shown as Next to Normal. While it may be written as next to normal on certain visual material intended to promote the show, I would imagine that's likely for aesthetic purposes only, similar to the way Rent is often depicted as RENT or Brooklyn as BKLYN. —MearsMan ^talk 06:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official book of the play it is referenced as next to normal without capitalization. 67.85.182.47 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I Miss The Mountans"

It was mentioned that Diana sang "I Miss the Mountains" because you missed much of Natalie growing up. Not true. In fact, the lyrics of the song are more along the lines of introspection triggered by what she saw. Now, regarding the lyrics, please not the following:

But I miss the mountains / I miss the dizzy heights / All the manic magic days / And the dark depressing nights / I miss the mountains / I miss the highs and lows / All the climbing, all the falling / All the while the wild wind blows / Stinging you with snow / And soaking you with rain / I miss the mountains / I miss the pain

I feel that I can safely say that because of lyrics like these, combined with my personal experiences, she misses the wide range of feelings she had before becoming "stable." Remember, she was declared stable when she didn't feel anything.

Thanks for following,

--Lafftrack7 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Lists

Do you think it's necessary to note down standbys and/or understudies? Because articles for some other Broadway shows have them and some don't. Also some tend to note down the original cast list and the current cast list, will that be necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.55.64 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, no I think that standbys and/or understudies should not be included. The guidelines for Musical theatre articles are quite specific on this([[3]]: "The names of non-notable (i.e., non-bluelinked) ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted. Only the actors playing principal (significant speaking and singing) roles should be mentioned."

(To add, later)Here's the rest of the guidelines to answer your question about current/replacement casts (which is not always adhered to, but we try...):

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. However, there should not be full lists of replacement casts. Notable replacement actors can be named either next to the original cast list or in prose in the description of the production. Other productions should merely name the notable actors and production team members who have Wikipedia articles and can be blue-linked, unless their names are important to an understanding of the musical and its history.

If you'll let me know where (which articles) you have seen standbys, or understudies, listed, I'll take a look, and, within the guidelines, possibly delete them. Thanks.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gabe and Henry understudy is called Timothy Young if that helps, should we note it down?

No, please do not include understudies, unless they are bluelinked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

Is the Awards section limited to just Tony Awards and the Pulitzer? Just it also won others such as Outer Critics Circle Best New Score, and more recently Kyle Dean Massey won Favorite Male Replacement in the 2010 broadway.com audience awards. Davidjwi (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely worth including noms/wins for Outer Critics Circle Awards, Drama Desk, Drama League etc, and then also Wins for other notable awards. To keep it nice and tidy in that section, you could put the information into an awards table (as seen in Legally Blonde). Im hoping to do this for alot of musical theatre articles in the future as I think it looks alot better and the information can be located very easily.Mark E (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look at changing it to an awards table in the future. It looks a much cleaner way to organize the awards. Davidjwi (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literary References and Allusions

When talking of Catcher in the Rye, Kyle Dean Massey mentions on his Twitter page reading the line "All mothers are slightly insane." and noting how fitting it is for the play. [4] Although this is not a literary reference or allusion, it seems noteworthy. Should this be contained in this section (after the Catcher in the Rye mention), in another section or not included at all? Davidjwi (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure. To be honest I would say the whole line of "Kyle Dean Massey said, "I read about a page a night." Salinger's novel, about grieving a loss, ironically is read by the character who is the loss." shouldn't be there anyways because it is purely trivial. In fact I think the whole of that section is quite messy, and I would personally suggest that the literary references form part of a section of a "Dramatic Analysis" section. Have a read on this page for some more info Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure.Mark E (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mark. See also WP:TRIVIA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character Info/Voice Types

I think we should give at least some info on the characters. Also would it be OK to mention voice types? If not why.

I think the voice types are Mezzo-Soprano for Diana and Natalie, Baritone for Dan, Henry and Dr. Madden and Tenor for Gabe, correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.31.120 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to others to comment on your "characters" question, although I think a well-written synopsis will have all the character information one would want. To quote:"A reader should be able to gain information about the main characters through the synopsis."

With respect to voice types, I would definitely say no, they should not be in this article. My reason is that the article structure guidelines for Musical theatre state:

Vocal ranges: Vocal ranges for musicals articles should generally not be included in character lists unless a consensus of editors working on the article is obtained. Editors may remove the vocal ranges in the absence of such a consensus. For musicals that are similar to operas or operettas, however, such as Candide (operetta), or The Desert Song, it may be useful to include vocal ranges. In these cases, editors working on an article should attempt to reach a consensus and report the consensus on the article talk page.

Here is the reference: [Article Structure]. This musical is neither an opera nor an operetta.JeanColumbia (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add, the keys for most of Diana's songs have been changed for Marin Mazzie so technically the voice type isn't important if it can be changed to suit the needs of individual performers.Mark E (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the information about the characters is in the plot summary. If it isn't in the plot summary, it probably isn't notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Productions

Does posting the lines from the screenplay to Twitter REALLY count as a production? Seriously? I don't oppose mentioning it in the article, or the wording of the mention, especially since somebody decided that this "performance" was worthy of an award. But calling that a production and listing it interspersed among the real productions, is just a giant insult to people who stage ACTUAL productions. 75.30.227.75 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree that it isn't really a "production" but the twitter adaptation was so much ore than just lines from the script tweeted. It was told as in real time thoughts from the characters if I'm not mistaken.

Subsequent productions

What it the notability criteria for post-Broadway productions? I ask because this list seems needlessly extensive.NeoAdamite (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Next to Normal. 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/20100415050116/http://theenvelope.latimes.com:80/la-et-pulitzer-mcnulty-20100413,0,3224899.story to http://theenvelope.latimes.com/la-et-pulitzer-mcnulty-20100413,0,3224899.story

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} 10:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mental illness in Next to Normal

What's with the unnecessary detail in this section, not really related to Next to Normal as a work? Anyone mind if I edit this down considerably to a few sentences at most? Boneymau (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Next to Normal. 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) 04:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Characters Section Confusion

Can we fix the characters section for Dr. Madden and Dr. Fine? I know it’s played by the same actor but they aren’t the same character. The way it is now on the page is confusing and makes it seem like they are the same character. Frankster200277 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casting tables

As a reminder, casting tables should not be updated until the production in question officially begins performances. Please read WP:CRYSTAL for further information. This is an encyclopedia page, not a fan page. Also, @2A02:C7C:5325:7500:DB5:F54F:F007:F6C5 please stop merging the tables like that. If/when a new casting needs to be added, you create a new column. Smitty1999 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]