Talk:The Better 'Ole

Synopsis

A Plot synopsis is needed to increase this to start-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a really short one in the NY Times review, but I could try to stretch it out.-- Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A really short one should go in the WP:LEAD section, and a longer one can be added later, when you locate a more detailed one. Good work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress data

Found this in the Library of Congress: [1], any thoughts? It seems to have a longer song list. --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When British Edwardian musical comedies came to Broadway, often a bunch of new musical numbers were thrown in and often replaced rather soon, to "keep the show fresh", so that the theatre could promote the show for repeat business: "Come again - there will two new songs by Mr. [famous songwriter] in the show starting next week." If these songs were successful, they stayed in the show for a while and were published as sheet music that people could play and sing at home - this was profitable for the producers. I would say you should try to find the original London song list, as it is more "authentic" than what IBDB lists for Edwardian musical comedies and other British musical pieces that originated in London. Nevertheless, what we have there is serviceable for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great photo! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I have a good one of the Victoire too, if the article ever gets long enough to have room for it. Tim riley (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, nice paragraph! :) Should we actually include that in the 'musical numbers' section (maybe try to find a source for the info)? --Bialytock&Bloom (talk)

Thanks! No, it's just background for you. It would take a whole article to make the argument properly, and the research would be a bear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This and that

Broadway - is it idiomatic to refer to the Greenwich Village Theatre as "Broadway"?

The Greenwich Village Theatre was not a Broadway theatre, and the link was bad. I've de-linked it and clarified. See if you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk)

New York cast - I see that the review in the NY Times cited in the article contains a cast list. Worth listing in the article?

Only if there are more notable actors that we have not named. --Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date format - we find the odd m-d-y format creeping in. We need to be consistent, and should stick to d-m-y throughout.

It should be Brit date format throughout, since the piece premiered in England. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel - I have added a line under "Critical reception" but am not sure that's the best place. Thoughts?

Tim riley (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the productions section. If the article gets long, it could be in an adaptations section, but it's ok where it is now, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoire?

Is Victoire his girlfriend, or like Moneypenny, or what? BTW, Tim riley, yes, please do add her photo. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Hi, Bialystock. We need a brief plot overview in the Lead section. See WP:LEAD. I agree that the Plot summary should be expanded, but first you need a very brief summary in the Lead, and then you need a longer Plot summary in the Plot section. So, by all means, keep looking for a more detailed plot summary, or write one yourself from the script, but please don't move the little summary out of the lead. For more information, see WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]