Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

RJ Blindside - who?

Citation needed here! A Google search for "RJ Blindside" yields few results: this Wikipedia page, and its copies on abitabouteverything.com, explodingproduce.com Answers.com! Does this company even exist? ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 10:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Townsville Grammar School?!

Am I missing something here? I hope so. Because, as sweet as it is, and I'm sure their mums are awfully proud of them, I don't understand why there is a section mentioning Townsville Grammar School students putting on a production. Are they internationally known, or is someone from the British royal family enrolled? I think some explanation is needed in the article for why this is worth mentioning -- however, my initial reaction is that this is a vanity piece and should be removed. [mariox19 2006.08.15 at 00:00 GMT.]

Article clean-up

This was a mess. Several facts were mentioned multiple times, and the "synopsis," far longer than the Wikipedia recommendation, was ridiculously lengthy and detailed, including everything except the stage directions. I pared it down to a concise description, removed duplicated data, and reorganized everything into chronological order. Hopefully this version will satisfy even the most finicky editors. SFTVLGUY2 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally much better. I readded the infobox with the image incorporated. -- Upholder 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked at least some idea of the scene structures and plot to have remained - now it's just generic. Any chance of a compromise - an edited (but not destroyed) plot summary - please? (1st April 2007)81.86.132.52 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like a revised plot analysis. Remember, concise is not a synonym for castrated. --24.94.142.242 00:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GeorgeHearn2.jpg

Image:GeorgeHearn2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Gigantic kudos on the restrained, well-written summary. Oh, but I do agree with the above that a more in-depth description wouldn't be out of place. Anchoress 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

An editor added some details to the summary recently, and I deleted a phrase describing Tobias (at the end of the show), concerning his hair. There is a phrase in the MTI plot synopsis: "Tobias appears, his hair now completely white from shock.", which is perhaps where the editor's addition came from (I always say I don't like to read into anothers' mind, that goes here as well). I did not see the original but I have seen something like 4 or 5 different productions of Sweeney Todd, and I can't say that I remember anything at all about Tobias' hair turning at the end. However, if other editors think it should be there, by all means return it. It certainly does enhance the final image of Tobias. JeanColumbia 11:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My father, Duane Morris, was in the chorus of the original production and I distinctly remember him coming home with the script after he got the part (Sondheim had not finished it yet). Tobias' hair was originally supposed to turn white ON STAGE but they were unable to find a way to make that work. I was there opening night (wearing the double-breasted tuxedo my father had worn on stage in "Sherry!" by James Lipton in 1967) and Tobias' hair is in fact white when he returns to the stage at the end. Additionally, the audience for that night was wildly enthusiastic and the theater was just as full of patrons after the intermission as it had been at the beginning. Jean Columbia, you shouldn't be editing anything you know nothing about. 71.34.239.1 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)David S. Morris, Springfield, Oregon[reply]

Tobias hair turned white (or more of a very light grey, I guess, not clean sheets white) in the San Franciso production in 1980, also. Or maybe it was '79 ? George Hearn, Angela Lansbury, Golden Gate Theater. I can remember the show as if it was yesterday. Still jump if I hear a whistle. It was not something you forget :) 116.231.78.79 (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uris Theatre

I think this is now the Gershwin Theatre? -- Ssilvers 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--George Gershwin Theatre JeanColumbia 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign)[reply]

Cultural references

An editor added:

During the Fourth Season of The Simpsons, in the episode "A Streetcar Named Marge", there was a song called "Oh, Streetcar!" about New Orleans being "home of pirates, drunks, and whores," among other things. In the commentary of the Fourth Season DVD Jeff Martin, the writer for that episode, said that this was intended as a spoof of the opening number in Sweeney Todd. This got the show in trouble with New Orleans. In response to the complaints, the producers "apologized" in the blackboard gag of the next episode, as Bart writes, "I will not defame New Orleans" to defuse the whole controversy and it did eventually blow over.

This was deleted. It may be interesting information, since The Simpsons are an important cultural barometer, but it is too long and repetitive. Also, it fails to show how the song was a parody of the opening number in Sweeney Todd. If we delete the last sentence of it, which has nothing to do with Sweeney, and explain how "Oh, Streetcar!" parodies Sweeney, then I think the reference could go under the heading of "Cultural references." I would shorten the whole thing as follows:

The episode "A Streetcar Named Marge" from the fourth season of The Simpsons, includes a song called "Oh, Streetcar!" about New Orleans being "home of pirates, drunks, and whores." In the commentary of the Fourth Season DVD, Jeff Martin, the episode's writer, says that the song was intended as a spoof of the opening number in Sweeney Todd. [did he say why?/explain how it is a spoof]

Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Is everyone ok with the move of "Sweeney Todd (musical)" to "Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street"? --DrBat 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (musical)"? At the moment, a search for 'sweeney todd' (all lower case) returns a list of related articles, and for consistency with "Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)" this article should perhaps maintain its disambiguation in the title. Feyrauth (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion, or perhaps simply 'Sweeney Todd (musical)'. My question is, why does the film's title use a colon, but the musical's name uses a comma to separate from the subtitle? As far as I've seen, both are shown (on posters, playbills, and such) as "SWEENEY TODD The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (albeit the text 'Sweeney Todd' sometimes not in caps), often with the subtitle 'The Demon Barber of Fleet Street' shown in smaller print below 'Sweeney Todd'. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (musical)", for reasons of consistency, locatablity and correct title use. Rotovia (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Rotovia (ergo, my opinion is slightly changed), for reasons of consistency and to avoid mix-up, especially since the new film. However, I am still confused by the use of the colin versus comma. On the film's DVD case and on the title card, the title contains no punctuation between "Sweeney Todd" and "The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (Musical as film). Thus, why are the titles of the film and musical written in the way it is? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1846

"In 1846, a young sailor, Anthony Hope rides a ship into London."

What's the source for this? Is it from the script? The String of Pearls was published in 1846, the Sweeney Todd page varies between "a historical figure who committed his crimes around 1800.", and "appearing in various English language works starting in the mid-19th century", but is never so specific. PRB (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Angela Lansbury/George Hearn dvd says on-screen at the beginning of "No Place Like London" what the year is. I don't remember the exact year, but it was mid-19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

String of Pearls takes place in 1785 though. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to see that someone kindly updated this page to reflect Sondheim's original stated intention that, though the source material is set in the early to mid-19th century, when he was writing the musical, he actually imagined the events of the narrative taking place in a dystopian London more than a thousand years in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.208.47 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal ranges

I do not consider the vocal ranges given in Stage Agent to be reliable. Discussions among the editors at WP:MUSICALS have consistently concluded that vocal ranges in articles about musicals are generally not helpful. We have not made this into an "official" guideline, since there may be some musicals for which the score's vocal ranges are so clearly well-established that noting the vocal range may be of some value. I do not feel strongly about this one (it is often played by opera companies, and I doubt that different productions change keys too often), and I don't see any egregiously ludicrous designations, but if you think about calling Johnny Depp a bass-baritone, I think you will see that it is kinda silly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp a Bass-Baritone? That is rather silly. :P But, I don't see what harm it does to mention vocal ranges for operas and stage musicals, (etc.) only. Mentioning the vocal ranges for the characters in the film adaptation would be useless, and is generally unverifiable, as whether Johnny Depp is a Bass-baritone or a tenor doesn't really matter, but, on the other hand, whether or not George Hearn/Len Cariou is does, therefore I say keep, as it is useful and verifiable— it's all just a matter of finding reliable sources to back it up. Unless this goes directly against Wikipedia policy, there's not much reason do delete. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kept on changing the vocal ranges, but it kept on being reverted. Johnny Depp is a tenor, not a bass-baritone. And the voice range of Mrs. Lovett on stage is contralto. In the movie, she's mezzo-soprano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.191.107 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeney Todd is a Bass-Baritone, no question. Gb2 (in the opening Ballad) to Gb4 (A Little Priest). Also, his part is all written in the bass clef. No way is he a tenor. Also, similar statement concerning Pirelli. He's not a baritone at all, not with all the C5s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put that Tobias goes from Eb-Ab. I can't verify how low he goes, but in "Not While I'm Around" he does go up to a high A. "TWO quid was in it..." Also, in the often-cut 'Tower of Bray' sequence, he goes up to a Bb and an optional (not sure if it's optional) high C. I'm going to change it from an Ab to an A.

Listen to the notes Lovett sings in By the Sea (the original broadway cast recording mind you, not the movie.) Mrs. Lovett is definitely a mezzo-soprano role.

Mrs. Lovett is a contralto role, but can be played by mezzo-sopranos. Whoever is changing her vocal range, please stop. Tribal44 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

Do you have a reference source to back up your claims? The one cited in this article says otherwise. --DAJF (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. Its says Mrs. Lovett is a contralto. [1]. Tribal44 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

That's the revival version with Patti Lupone. They transposed the music down for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how accurate this link might be, but I just thought I'd throw it out there. It says that they transposed the notes several times so the notes Patti LuPone sang were different from the ones Angela Lansbury sang. It also says that Mrs. Lovett is a "dead middle mezzo" and the person supplies links for their answer http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080625142934AAtxqKO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allison 99 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be accurate. Check with the admin. Tribal44 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

How do I ask an admin? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.204.94 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to speak on the subject of Mrs. Lovett. I'm no expert on female vocal ranges. I do believe, however, that Mrs. Lovett's part was lowered for the Broadway Revival. Though this is hearsay on my part.

I also notice that Anthony's part has been changed. It was 'tenor/baritone,' and someone cut out the 'baritone' part. It is true that Anthony is traditionally played by tenors. But he never goes very high at all. He has a number of sustained Fs, yes, but Sweeney has Fs himself. Anthony's range is Ab2-F#4, both extremes of which are in the song 'Kiss Me.' Anthony could easily be played by a lyric baritone. Even a strong high bass could pull it off. I do think it should be reverted to 'tenor/baritone.' There are baritone roles that go that high and higher - Javert (F#), Billy Bigelow (G)... heck, Captain Corocan in HMS Pinafore has a high A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps editing the character list, listing Anthony as a tenor. While Anthony is often played by tenors, his range is that of a lyric baritone. I've looked at the score. His range is from a low Ab to a high F# (he doesn't even have to hold the F#. Highest note he sustains is an F). The role does not call for the same kind of a voice as the Beadle, Pirelli, or Tobias. He goes no higher than Sweeney, who is most certainly not a tenor. There are plenty of baritone roles that go as high and higher, both in musical theatre and in opera, Figaro (the Barber of Seville), Captain Corocan (HMS Pinafore), Billy Bigelowe (Carousel), Tom Collins (Rent), Benny (Guys and Dolls), the Captain (Sound of Music), Count Almaviva (The Marriage of Figaro), Javert (Les Miserables), Tony (The Most Happy Fella), Curly (Oklahoma!). The list goes on and on. Anthony should be listed as both, not only as tenor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name

Where's the discussion for this move? I cannot find it and I'm against it as there is no other use for "Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street", the explanation on brackets is to be used only when there is another use for the title, in this case there is not.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the film version of this musical, it's located at Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film). Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Huh? I meant this article, which I now see you moved from Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street to Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (musical) with the edit summary: Per talk page discussion., More appropriate (as per the naming conventions) and less confusing. So, I would like to see the "talk page discussion" please, because according to the naming conventions articles should be disambiguated when there already is an article with that name. This musical is the origin of the title "Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street" so I don't see why should "(musical)" be added. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I appologise; my eyes are playing tricks on me this afternoon (thought you said "movie", rather than "move"). The discussion is on this page. It seems that it is easier this way, because there is already a film version, an older, non-musical version, and other adaptations. It is much simpler and provides less confusion this way since without the "(musical)", it could be confused with the film adaptation. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see it now...just a few headings up hehe..Anyway, the move is wrong, the originating article should not be disambiguated. Rent (musical) is disambiguated because there already is an article on rent, while Pride and Prejudice is not eventhough there are loads of other stuff also called Pride and Prejudice. On the original discussion DrBrat was suggesting to move Sweeney Todd (musical) to Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street because back in 2007 the article was misnamed, he wasn't suggesting to disambiguate.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and agree. I'll try and request that it is moved over the redirect soon. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I moved the page back, right before seeing that there is a 1936 film with the exact same name (except for the , and the: ) meaning that your original move was right. I'll rollback myself.

Whoops, I didn't see your reply in my watchlist and just moved it back! What a dillemma; I'll rollback myself. :P Sorry for the confusion, so to speak. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sweeneylarge.jpg

The image Image:Sweeneylarge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009: Copy violation

The synopsis added on October 6, 2009 (by IP 71.184.148.68) was a cut& paste from the MTI Shows synopsis @ [[2]]. That is a copy violation per WP:COPY and so I have reverted to the previous good synopsis. (FYI, the Terms of Use on the MTI site states, in part: "All materials and content contained in any MTI Site, including without limitation all text, data, images of any kind, audio, video, site design, and software (collectively, “Content”), are the copyrighted property of MTI, or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies and/or third-party owners. All trademarks, logos, service marks, trade names and trade dress are proprietary to MTI, its affiliates and/or third party owners, and unauthorized use thereof is prohibited by law. You may not copy, reproduce, transfer, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast or distribute Content in any way or in any media now known or hereafter devised except for your personal, noncommercial home use only...") JeanColumbia (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overload on Character Articles

Okay, so I've noticed that individual characters in the musical seem to have their own articles, and that every main character save for Anthony has their own article. I seriously think that these do not meet standards of notability - Pirelli, for example, is a fairly minor character who dies halfway through the first act. Unless someone can greatly expand on different versions of the character (if they even exist, more on that later), then perhaps that'd be useful for comparison. As it is, the articles serve no purpose other than to give brief snippets of the plot of the musical, and only the musical.

Furthermore, some of the articles are just inaccurate. The article on Lucy Barker is probably the most glaring, because it assumes that the events of the musical are part of the typical Sweeney Todd legend, when in fact the revenge storyline is present only in Bond's play and Sondheim's musical (and the movie based on the musical).

Obviously, characters like Sweeney Todd himself and and Mrs. Lovett may warrant articles, and maybe even other important characters such as Tobias Ragg (who does figure into other versions of the legend), but I think the number of articles here is rather unnecessary. 24.152.189.91 (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Production changes

Trying to do some general tidying of this article – some of the additional productions and additions seem to be getting out of hand. A big part was reducing the "productions" section of the infobox. Here it is, saved for posterity:

Extended content

1980 West End
1980 U.S. Tour
1982 U.S. Tour
1982 Telecast of national tour
1984 Houston Grand Opera
1984 New York City Opera
1984 Michigan Opera Theatre^[1]
1989 Broadway revival
1993 London South Bank
International productions
1995 Teatre Poliorama, Barcelona Catalan version
1998 Teatro Albéniz, Madrid Spanish version
1998 Opera North, Leeds
2002 Lyric Opera of Chicago
2003 London Royal Opera House
2004 West End revival
2004 New York City Opera revival
2005 Broadway revival
2007 U.S. Tour
2007 film
2008 London revival
2008 Teatro Español, Madrid revival
2010 Buenos Aires
2011 Chatelet Theatre, Paris
2011 Chichester Festival Theatre, West Sussex
2012 West End revival
2012 Czech Republic
2013 The Royal Exchange Theatre
2014 Quebec City
2014 The Marlowe Theatre, Canterbury

By my count, that was 27 productions – I think that's too many for an infobox where readers need a "quick clip" of the article. My general removal methodology was twofold:

If it wasn't mentioned (or wasn't mentioned extensively) in the prose of the article, then it didn't belong in the infobox.
Productions that maintained generally the same staging or concept were only listed the first time. This cut out the first U.S. Tours and some others. (Although the 2005 Broadway revival was an exception to this rule – although it brought the staging over from the 2004 West End production, I think it's Tony Nominations make it a little more nontable.)

I'm totally open to suggestions on this. If there's a good reason one of the above productions should go back in the box, let's talk about why! --omtay 38 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://motlibrary.slis.wayne.edu/history.html#A1984

George Hearn

How come George gets so little credit, both here and on the other Sweeney Todd page ? He's not even listed there, and barely listed here. He did a great Sweeney, both on Broadway and touring and in the SF concert version with Patti Lupone (tho I think Angela Lansbury's interpretation was more suited to the spirit of the musical, even though Patti Lupone is generally wonderful.) Can someone with more experience correct this miscarriage of justice ? 210.22.142.82 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(What the heck is this "footnote" below ? Has nothing to do with this "New Section" and appears to be spam. If someone can get rid of it that would be great, I can't even access the text. Grrr)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. 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/20080414014121/http://www.sweeneytoddmtw.co.uk:80/ to http://www.sweeneytoddmtw.co.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. 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/20130218090424/http://www.nymt.org.uk/history/pastprods.html to http://www.nymt.org.uk/history/pastprods.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sweeneytoddmtw.co.uk/

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) 03:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary length

The current plot summary is roughly 1,600 words long. The guideline for musicals caps out at 1,100. While I recognize that this is not cast in concrete and exceptions are always possible, the current summary seems to be overly detailed.

Thoughts before I begin trimming? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. 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) 08:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://motlibrary.slis.wayne.edu/history.html#A1984

[1]