Talk:The Boy (musical)

Plot synopsis

Can anyone add a plot synopsis to this article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. I'm working on The Magistrate on which the show was, it seems, very closely based, but I'll have to keep this synopsis general, as I haven't got access to the text of the musical. I suppose I could go down to the British Library if all else fails. Tim riley (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a brief synopsis in Ganzl or one of the other encyclopedias that cover Edwardian musical comedies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Productions in infobox

Addition of 1920 Australia production in the infobox was deleted, saying "The box is only for major-market productions" referring to WP:MUSICALS. My reading of the Template:Infobox musical says that the productions line is to include "Notable professional international productions & tours". Surely it is covered by that, as perhaps the only major professional production outside the US or UK. And even if assuming the box is only for major-market productions, I'd still think of Australia as a major market (at least was in the first half of the twentieth century). Boneymau (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing to musical theatre on Wikipedia for over 10 years and remember when the WP:MUSICALS project created the useful article structure guideline for musicals: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. It says there: The productions in the infobox should include the original production, the major productions in New York and/or London and U.S. or UK national tours. Other productions can be indicated by the catchall phrase "International productions" or "Major regional productions". This article is underdeveloped: a better-developed article would have a "Productions" section that describes each major production, including notable cast members, the name of the director, what theatre each production played in, the length of the run, and other key information. In the case of this musical, all that is said about the Australian production is that it starred Gladys Moncreiff. I disagree that the Australian production should be mentioned in the infobox, but I can say with certainty that a much more important issue for article development is to add production information about that production. So, if you have sources about that production (and any others), please start a "Productions" section and add useful information to the article instead of just an unreferenced infobox factoid. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added production info, to get that out of the way as an issue. But to specifically highlight only US and UK productions in the infobox is very US/UK-centric for no clear reason. For transparency, it does appear you added that qualification to the guidelines in 2010 (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Article_Structure#Infobox_guidelines). No-one objected at the time, but I guess I'm questioning the logic now. I agree that we should avoid very long lists when popular shows have numerous productions and revivals around the world, keeping it only to the most notable productions. But that is hardly the situation here, with seemingly two productions of the original show and a US adaptation. Boneymau (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the production info. Re: the infobox, in general we want to keep infoboxes concise. The more I work on musicals article, the more I think it was a mistake to include any productions in the infobox other than the premiere (and maybe the *first* major-market production). As you realize above, the list of productions in the infobox becomes meaninglessly long for a much-revived musical. In any case, why would you add the 3-month long Melbourne run to the infobox, but not the longer Broadway run? And, I must reiterate that Melbourne is not a "major market" compared with the West End and Broadway. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion to bring out underlying assumptions. It would be good to get others' views on the general issue as well, although possibly this isn't the best place for that. I can see the point about maybe not including any productions beyond the premiere in the infobox, although to my mind its useful value is showing at-a-glance the 'journey' of the show and how widely it has been performed. Of course Melbourne (or Australia generally) is a smaller market than the West End or Broadway. But that isn't the infobox standard you referred to, which also includes US or UK national tours. I don't understand at all why a UK tour should be seen as more significant than a major Australian or German production, for example. (And just to clarify, the only reason I didn't add the Broadway production to the infobox previously because I wasn't sure whether it still counted as a production of The Boy given it was adapted. That's a special and distinct issue). Boneymau (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a move to remove national tours from infoboxes. I also think we should remove film versions from infoboxes. Anything that focuses readers on the content of the articles, rather than infobox data, is a good idea, in my opinion. The best place for the discussion, if you want to have it, would be the WP:MUSICALS talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]