Talk:Spring Awakening (musical)

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 May 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Spring Awakening (musical) 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

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Synopsis

If anyone who has seen the show is on here, could you give a summary of the show song by song and explain what happens in each one? that would be great. Posted by User:MyJunkIsYou, 21:02, 27 December 2006.

There is now a synopsis, but it's pretty long and rambling. Can anyone tighten it up? -- Ssilvers 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article needs to have a summary statement (perhaps 1-3 sentences), or at least a general indication, of what the play is about in the introductory paragraph (before the table of contents). -Do c t orW 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Synopsis section definitely needs to be shortened. WP:WPMT/AS states that "the synopsis should be long enough to accurately convey the story-line, the main characters, and the main musical numbers, but need not be overwhelmingly long or detailed. (The film project suggests a 900 word maximum, but a complex plot could require slightly more.)" I ran a word count on the section in its current format, and it came up as being 1,612 words long, which is clearly much longer than it should be. I'd really appreciate it if someone who's familiar with the show would work on it a bit. —Mears man (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the play but it was kind of hard to see because the person who bought my tickets bought really bad seats. Iluvbuffbabiez (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)iluvbuffbabiez[reply]

Infobox

Yep, needs one. -- Annie D 09:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking background

I'll do what I can, but I know very little and haven't seen the whole thing (only excerpts). Experts would be better, but at the very least, we need to add more background on the making of this musical ... explaining why it took seven years, detailing how the actors were barely into their teens in some cases when first cast (e.g., Lea Michele), explaining how it came to be made, more about the critical reception, and so forth, all using verifiable, reliable published sources and avoiding peacock terms. (People who edit articles about musicals do tend to be major fans of the works, after all, and it's easy to lose objectivity.) Lawikitejana 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This last bit of paragraph needs a little work:

"However in my alternate ending Melchior does attempt suicide, but Melchior hears a voice in the cemetary, he crawls over with a razor in his chest, to Morritz's grave to find Morritz, along with Melchior on the brink of death. Luckily, Wendla, alive and well, calls for help. Morritz was in the worse condition, and an inch away from truly dying. Melchior got the razor blade stuck between his arteries, and if the razor rips the arteries apart, Melchior dies. In the next scene Melchior and Morritz are about to check out of the hospital when all of a sudden the ne'er do-wells from the reform school beat them up. Wendla stabs them all with a syringe, but its too late:Morritz stobs breathing and Melchior's wound fell oppen, killing them both."

The first sentence is confusing (too many names to too many pronouns and "my"?). Some of the grammar and spelling should be checked as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.219 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

This article needs citations to published sources. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list

Please do not add non-notable names to the replacement cast list. Unless an actor has a Wikipedia article of his or her own, the article structure guidelines at WP:MUSICALS state that replacement cast names should not be listed. If you would like to help improve this article, please help us to find citations to reliable sources for the many assertions made in the article that are currently unreferenced. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we also have a "Current cast" list? Sammi.mcclain (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. At WP:MUSICALS, the consensus has been to show only an "original" Broadway cast list for all the musical theatre articles in Wikipedia. Then, when notable cast replacements join the cast, their names can be added as "notable replacements". This is an encyclopedia, rather than a newspaper or "news" source. Think of it this way: in the future, after the show has closed, what information will readers need about this show? What this article needs is references from published sources to back up the information given. Right now, the article is seriously under-referenced. See WP:V. Can you help with this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences Between Musical and Play

In the current page, it is stated that a difference between the musical and play is that Martha and Ilse are sexually abused in the play, whereas in the musical Martha is simply physically abused.

I would disagree with this. In the musical, Martha and Ilse sing "The Dark I Know Well" in which they both imply that their respective fathers climb into bed with them and abuse them sexually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadjai (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it says, or should say, the opposite. I also noticed that the Differences section has now been removed altogether and I'm curious why.24.63.242.81 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themes Section

The themes section has absolutely no citiation and (I feel) doesn't accurately represent all the major themes of the play. There needs to be some reliable sources found for the major themes and a more comprehensive outline. I don't even know if "sex" would count as a theme, although the contrast in treatment of it between the older and younger generations might. 24.151.27.32 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audience

Spring Awakening is directed at adults and teen-agers from ages 13 and up. The idea is that anyone who watches it and has gone through puberty can somehow relate to on of the issues brought up in the show.

Bondage?

The page lists "bondage" as one of the reasons the original play was banned, but I can't for the life of me think of any such references in the play -- I'm tending to think it's some sort of misunderstanding stemming from the play often being said to contain S&M because of the beating scene.

If I'm just remembering correctly, someone explain where this is coming from? -- 24.92.75.201 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to remove the mention. If someone can justify its being there they can put it back. 24.167.233.42 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate production sections

An IP duplicated the production sections and added sub-heads, but did not delete the old material. There is nothing wrong with the old material, or for that matter, the previous structure. Since the IP has not indicated his/her intent with these duplications, I am deleting at this time some of the duplicates (to make it clear, this is duplicate material that I am deleting). I shall re-visit this article at a later time; sorry to remove what has been some work on the part of an editor (s), but this kind of work does not make this article better. It would be helpful if the IP would indicate their intent with an edit summary or note on the talk page.JeanColumbia (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the repeated information about subsequent and international productions, which was also laid out by creating many stubby sections. There will be many, many productions of this musical. The most important thing is to include references to WP:Reliable sources, so please add these to verify each production. Please keep the information compact, as information about subsequent productions is not the most important information in this article. For more information on how to add information to musical theatre articles, see the article structure guidelines at WP:MUSICALS. Best regards to all! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think amateur productions, like the regional australia one in Victoria and South Australia should be removed. Stick to only professional productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.251.199 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about the redirect

(1) Why does the musical get the main namespace instead of the source material? And (2) are talk pages for redirects supposed to be redirected as well? I thought they were supposed to stay on their own page in case there needs to be discussion about the redirect. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's super weird that the musical has the main namespace. It's a pretty important play and, as far as I can tell, a fairly minor musical. Adam (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the hatnote to include the play, but then I realized it is also in the first sentence in the lead and I'm not sure if that is redundant or not. It was my impression that the most "popular" related article to the said subject was the one that got the main namespace, but I could very easily be wrong and it's by originality not accessibility. However, if it is by reader popularity, then see Spring Awakening (play) traffic and Spring Awakening traffic – Jonadin93 (talk) @ 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moritz/Ilse?

In the character descriptions, it's explicitly stated that Moritz is in love with Ilse, and she with him. I think this is very open to interpretation and should not be included in the descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.6.117 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- Moritz and Ilse's relationship is relatively brief, and I don't think that it is something that should be expressly stated as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden.osborne (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed copyvio - synopsis

The synopsis section appeared to be an exact duplicate of the synopsis from http://mtishows.com/show_detail.asp?showid=000357, so I removed it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musical instruments

The random mention of musical instruments (guitar, harp, piano, bass, voice) in the Broadway Revival cast listings needs to be either explained (in the chart or in the text section on the Broadway Revival) or deleted, as it currently makes no sense. Please fix. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Spring Awakening (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:

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) 04:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]