Talk:School of Rock (musical)

A fact from School of Rock (musical) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that School of Rock marks the first time since 1971 that an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical will receive its world premiere on Broadway rather than London's West End?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/School of Rock (musical).

Wikipedia

A couple of comments

First, although the article is well done, I think the plot synopsis extremely long. We don't need for example, the whole food/granola bar thing. I would suggest looking at other plot synopses for well-regarded articles, and try for that level of detail. At present, it's at least twice as long as it should be.

I'm wondering at the detailed list of characters, as well. If they are important, they are likely mentioned and explained in the synopsis.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI Wehwalt. I never added the sysnopsis, however I will make an attempt at trimming it down. Its way too long. Did you get a chance to look at the sources for the critical reception section.Blethering Scot 16:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wehwalt about both points, but good work, overall. In addition, the better Wikipedia articles about musicals that have a cast table similar to this one do not give "current" cast lists in the table, only original casts. Blue-linked replacements can be mentioned in notes below the table. Also, the reception section should be a discussion of what the major critics had to say, both the good and the bad. The WP:LEAD section should give a 1 or 2 sentence summary of the plot. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, current casts shouldnt be in the table. Ive already removed additions a few times. As for replacements I'm not a great fan of them being included under the table either.Blethering Scot 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet, because I haven't been online much recently. As soon as I can. It doesn't matter who adds the stuff, it's in the article so we comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Ive left a message on User:Kindofleigh's talk page regarding the synopsis. I would need to butcher it, so I felt it may be better to give the person that wrote it a chance to trim it down first. Purely as they appear to have a more intricate knowledge of the plot than I do.Blethering Scot 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast CD

For the record cast the cast CD listing, is useful information and is almost certainly notable. To say this article is about the musical is silly and your saying the cast CD isn't about the musical. If the cast CD was an identical copy of the running order, then repatition could be argued but in this case it isn't. The list adds value & certainly doesn't detract anything from the article. Also the argument that a subpage could be created is one i don't really agree with. Yes because it charted it becomes notable in that right, but If the main article isn't overly long why split the page, makes very little sense. It kind of stinks of we dont want it in our project pass it over to another wikiprojects realm. Just dont agree with it.Blethering Scot 15:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's fairly pointless to have two near-identical listings without any examination of the differences. It just looks like amateurish fancruft at best. – SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No its not pointless and they aren't identical. It adds valid information and there are GA articles that this is included in. How is a cast cd fancruft or amateurish? Calling a cast cd listing amateurish is a joke in its self. its relevant information about the subject of the article. I see absolutely no reason to create a separate article as suggested by Silvers. Also you were fully advised to take to talk page, which I'm sure you are aware is part of BRD. So why did you choose to ignore it?Blethering Scot 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I ignored the talk page when you've been replying to my comment above! – SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is you thats edit warring not me": that's laughable, I'm afraid: it takes at least two to edit war – at least I'm honest enough to fess up to what I'm doing! – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get this straight. The cast cd was in the article since released, this was removed by Ssilvers at 19:37 on 8 February 2016. So per BRD I reverted at 20:47 on 27 March 2016. So you decided that rather than following BRD you would revert and enter an edit war. As you chose not to follow BRD you were reverted and advised to take to talk page. A talk page discussion was started. However rather than discuss on talk page 9 minutes after discussion started you reverted again. Frankly its you that wants an edit war not me. As indicated above you clearly ignored the talk page and choose to edit war. If you want to properly discuss all for it, if you want an edit war then fine.Blethering Scot 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this edit of yours shows you know exactly how BRD works. So you preach it but refused to follow it yourself.Blethering Scot 21:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lie. I have not "clearly ignored the talk page": this is my fourth comment, as you are well aware, given you have responded to my comments. I'll reiterate: it takes at least two to edit war, and you are as culpable as anyone else, no matter what your attempted justification of a guideline suggests. – SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly ignored the talk page. At ou should know better take to talk page. At 15:57 on 28 March 2016‎, you were advised to take to talk page, at 16:09 on 28 March 2016, you reverted with the petulant comment of ditto. As this conversation was started at 16:07 on 28 March 2016‎, you chose to revert rather than discuss. Sorry but don't you dare accuse me of lying. You were clearly advised to discuss yet you reverted anyway. Facts are Facts I'm afraid. Blethering Scot 22:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I have discussed this on the talk page (and that you replied), I'm afraid does rather reinforce that fact that you are not telling the truth. I see there is little point in trying to talk to someone who is prepared to lie so badly and blatantly over something so petty as this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you ever dare call me a liar again unless you have evidence to back it up. The fact is you don't. Im fully aware that you are here now, but you chose to engage in an edit war rather than following BRD. That very clear from the facts laid out above. Crystal clear in fact. You have clearly acknowledged you know what BRD is, yet you chose to petulantly ignore with a comment of Ditto. Above you then said 'I'm not sure how I ignored the talk page when you've been replying to my comment above! Again I've provided evidence that you did indeed ignore me when I said discuss on talk page and you reverted anyway. You were only interested in one thing and that was edit warring. Really poor.Blethering Scot 22:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you guys have worked this out, can you let me know so I can get going on the reviews as BS asked me to? I'm going to be doing it mostly offline so I'm worried about edit conflicts. No opinion on the matter at issue, not getting in the middle (which is how I've survived ten years here :) )--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt its up to you entirely whether you wish to continue to do the reviews for me. Frankly at this moment in time I've lost all appetite for getting this article to GA.Blethering Scot 10:54 pm, Today (UTC+1)

What was the cast in 2016 for the musical school of rock

Hi, what was the cast of school of rock need it for school project.thx Yours Unicorneditor Unicorneditor (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]