Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure/Archive 2

The following was taken from the original posting at User:Omtay38/sandbox

Notes from omtay38

I tried to keep the format away from lists as much as possible. All examples (except for the Godspell one) were made up by me on the spot and could use some help or even complete replacement. This document would become not only the basis of all new articles on musicals, but also the go-to for any disputes or analysis of current musical articles. Therefore, it should have some aggressive analysis. To keep this organized, please do not edit the main page, but rather place your suggestions on this page, with an appropriate heading. The comments will then be reviewed and placed on the main page. Let the analysis begin. --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

For the Intro section, why not add an example on how you think a good intro should look, and then we can discuss it. Right now, the description of what should be in the intro is very vague. --Ssilvers 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure exactally how to write it, anybody got an idea (or a page with a good one that we can copy right now?) --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Tags

Where should the spoiler tags go? I don't think the whole Synopsis should need spoiler tags. Perhaps just the denoument? Otherwise, The word "Synopis" would always mean the same thing as "Warning: this contains the plot." Also, do we really need spoiler tags on the Sound of Music, or Phantom of the Opera? --Ssilvers 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i've been looking around and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera states "The use of spoiler tags before synopsis/plot summaries is regarded as unnecessary and distracting." I think we could follow their example. Or perhaps just around the truly secretive parts of the plot (i.e. the very ending of Wicked). --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it before, but what if we only had spoiler tags for musicals that are currently playing in theatres? Then we could leave the vast majority of articles untagged and we wouldn't have to debate every single case & worry about gray areas etc. After all, there's generally nothing to spoil in a closed musical. --Drenched 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of only using spoiler tags for Musicals currently playing. I'll add it in if there are no objections. --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music/Dramatics

Wouldn't it be better to call this Musical Analysis and Dramatic Analysis? --Ssilvers 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. The reason it is now called Music is so that "List of Musical numbers" can be a subheading under it to help us stray away from lists. I actually like the heading Musical Analysis better but don't want to make "List of Musical numbers" a first level heading (at least not on the Article Structure page). --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be called musical/dramatic analysis. Also, why are these sections "optional?" They should be mandatory for a good/featured article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed both to Analysis but kept optional The reason for the "optional" is to take into account musicals that may not have much music or dramatics to analyze. Things like musical reviews, jukebox musicals and things of that nature would have nothing to put under the Dramatics section. For the most part, almost all of these sections are not optional for a good/featured article, but we do want to avoid the addition of unnecessary or superfluous sections. Thoughts? Perhaps a blanket statement at the beginning stating that unnecessary headings should not be used? Keep the "optional"? Which ones should we keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtay38 (talk • contribs)

Well, I think all musicals have some music to analyze. I suppose the dramatic analysis section could be kept optional, as it wouldn't apply for revues, but I'm pretty sure that all musicals have some music to analyze, albeit not always very much. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I'll remove the optional from the music section but keep it for dramatic. :-) --omtay38 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and Cultural Impact

These should not overlap. Cultural impact should include all references in other works of literature, not Trivia. Personally, I think that Trivia is a bad idea, because it encourages editors to stick in stuff that is not notable, NPOV and unreferenced, or not substantially related to the article. Probably, anything notable and necessary to the article would fit in another category. --Ssilvers 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true and I agree wholeheartedly. However, many articles already have pure trivia sections (Fiddler on the Roof). What should be done with those? --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

I noticed you left out categorization in the guidelines. I'd suggest adding a short section outlining which basic categories a musical should be placed into. Something like:

Determine the first verified year "YYYY" the musical was produced, and place the article in Category:YYYY musicals.
Look at the nationalities of the musical's composers and book authors. If they're all from the same country, place the article in that country category found under Category:Musicals by nationality. For example, if the musical's creators were all American, then place it under Category:American musicals.
If the article mentions the musical ever appeared on Broadway, include it in Category:Broadway musicals. If the article says it was an Off-Broadway production and never played Broadway, instead include it in Category:Off-Broadway musicals. A musical normally should not appear in both these categories simultaneously.
If the musical ever appeared in London's West End, include it in Category:London West End musicals
If the musical was made into a musical film, include it in Category:Musical films. If the musical is a stage production adaptation of what was originally a film, place it in Category:Musicals based on films. If the musical was adapted for a musical on television, include it in Category:Musical television specials.
Lastly, if the musical doesn't clearly fit into ANY of those subcategories, place in in the overall category Category:Musicals. Only articles which do not fit in any subcategory should appear here (which means that most of the articles still in this category are probably stubs that need additional information or which haven't yet been sub-categorized).

Just a suggestion. Dugwiki 12:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion tanken. (sorry for the late response too) --omtay38 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I made some minor copy edits and added a paragraph before I read the above, but I think the changes are not too controversial. Check the history and delete or move down here if you disagree. Also, I added my comments on the discussion page. Can we move all this discussion to the discussion page, which is the more standard way to do it? Finally, I thought we decided that the nationality of a musical for Category purposes depended on where the main premiere was, not on the nationality of the authors. If Sondheim writes a musical for a West End theatre, or if Lloyd Weber writes one for a Broadway theatre, which is it? --Ssilvers 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and the discussion has been moved. As for the Categories, I'm not really sure. Anybody know? --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was thinking the same thing as Ssilvers, but then I started thinking of exceptions that would make the current method more acceptable. For example Bombay Dreams premiered in London and then opened in New York (thus making one think it would belong in Category:British musicals). However, the entire show takes place in Bombay, India, was written by A. R. Rahman (an Indian composer), and several of the songs are in Hindi. But since (as far as I know), it has never played in India — so does it belong in Category:Indian musicals? Miss Saigon features only Vietnamese and American characters, but originally opened in London. What to do...what to do...? — warpedmirror (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National musicals categories: Is there any reason why a show can't have the cat for more than one nationality? For instance if it is a Sondheim musical that has its big premiere in London, why not say it is an American musical and a British musical? I don't think the nationality of the characters matters. A Chinese Honeymoon is a British musical, even though it takes place in China, and The King and I is an American musical even though it takes place in Siam (under British rule). --Ssilvers 04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this method could be the most preferable. In the case of Musical Theatre productions, I feel that the categories are more helpful with the discovery of an article than when a user is trying to find information about an article. If, for example, I know that Into the Woods was staged on the West End, I might look in "British Musicals". I could then read the article and then find all the information about the various premiers and countries of origin. Thoughts? --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Lists

I noticed our current plan is very anti-lists. So just a question: what's wrong with having some lists? I realize that having every castlist ever, a list of awards, and then a list of musical numbers would be cumbersome and I know we're worried about featured status, but I think having some lists is all right/unavoidable. I mean I agree it'd be good to have some narrative regarding awards to contextualize, but would you really go through 5 Tony awards saying "____ won best actress...because she was the best actress. ____ won best featured actor...because he was fucking awesome. ___ won lighting design because he had the prettiest lights of them all. ___ won best director because his direction was better than everyone else's"? Also I think an OBC list is okay for the major roles. Just my two cents :) --Drenched 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I have incorporated some language that basicaly states "if you must use a list, please do so". --omtay38 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In omtay's defense, while lists can be informative, they are not considered "good prose" — a requirement for WP:GA and especially WP:FA. They really should be avoided at all cost unless the prose is overly redundant. And there's no need at all to have a new sentence for each award either. Ex.: The Drowsy Chaperone walked away with five Tony Awards under its belt, including Best Musical, Best Original Score, Best Scenic Design, Best Costume Design, and Best Featured Actress in a Musical for Beth Leavel as the Chaperone. Just my $.02. — warpedmirror (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding Musical Numbers in the Synopsis

One concern about bolding the musical numbers in the synopsis: Doesn't WP:MOS say that they should be in quotes? I could very well be wrong and I'll go check right now, but I thought that might be a concern worth worrying about (?). — warpedmirror (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a concern, we should stick to the WP:MOS as much a possible. According to the Manual of Style, for popular music "album titles should be in italics, and song titles should be in quotes". Also in Manual of Style it mentions that song titles should be in quotes. However, because we are writing the article structure guide for articles about Musical Theater, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we would have the license to add to the manual of style something like "when listing the musical numbers from a musical theater show, do this..". What makes me think this was the popular music section of the music MOS. There it says, "Main article: Wikiproject Music. Thus I think if we form consensus on how the numbers should be listed when they are listed within a synopsis, we can put that into the manual of style. --omtay38 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Notes

All this is good; if we can do all this and cite sources it'd be great. Crystallina 21:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the proposed structure looks great! I just wanted to commend omtay38 for all his hard work, and in taking the lead & formally writing everything out. I like that the structure has so many optional parts; with such a huge variety of musicals out there, I think flexibility in article structure is crucial, and this format gives it. --Drenched 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Section

I am going to add in a last section with advice on using the proposed article structure when an article already has been written (and, thus, probably dosen't conform). Anything that should be added? --omtay38 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to the last note section. Feel free to revert if you disagree, but I think you should keep it upbeat and simple. I want to add my thanks to those of Drenched about the fine job you have done of moving this forward. --Ssilvers 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double thank you! Your edits look fine and thanks for the thanks! --omtay38 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Question

Hello, I'm not officially part of the Wikiproject, but this is as good a place to ask a question to those more in the know. I've participated in quite a bit of editing on the Mary Poppins (musical) page, and someone suggested that the article list out the differences between the stage version and the Disney film. It would be a long list since there are many differences, so I was thinking of starting a new article maybe titled Differences between Mary Poppins (musical) and Mary Poppins (film). Would this be irrelevant to wikipedia's needs? -- Annie D 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Productions Policy

Hello, I'm not an official member of the project, but I do watch quite a few articles about theatre and musicals. We've been having problems lately on the West Side Story page about a local amateur production being advertised several times. On the talk page, I listed some requirements that seem to be prevalent, but not completely written. I stated that, "For musicals the threshold for warranting a production's inclusion in Wikipedia seems to be either 1) a world premiere, 2) a cast recording, 3) a production in a noteworthy venue like Broadway or the West End, 4) a famous star in a production, or 5) a revolutionary production that alters the way people worldwide see, imagine, and stage the show in the future." I would like some comments about these suggestions. Also, what do the project members think of incorporating into the official productions policy.--Cassmus 05:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cassmus. I made a suggestion at the talk page, but I like your list above. Right now, the musicals project is pretty quiet. Please do join as a "participant". Last summer and fall, there was a flurry of activity in the project, but the energetic souls have taken a long, long, wikibreak. In the meantime, people are pretty much working on only the articles they care about the most. I know of only one person who is energetically creating new articles, but he refuses to collaborate with others. I am starting a new job so cannot devote too much time to this currently, and most of my energy is going to the WP:G&S project. If you have anything you'd like my feedback on, I'd be happy to give it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Cassmus. I fully agree with the stipulations you have presented. I personally remove any mention of high school, college, and/or community theatre productions when I happen to stumble across them, and you should feel free to do the same.

As far as an "official" policy, there presently are guidelines that were devised by people who apparently abandoned the musical theatre project long ago. In government, when administrations or regimes change, so do policies, and while an old-timer or two might want to cling to the formats suggested by editors who no longer are active, I feel there is nothing wrong with new blood with new ideas creating new ways of doing things. Clinging to the past simply because that's the way things were done once-upon-a-time inhibits creativity. If you choose to contribute I hope you will express yourself as an individual and not try to emulate old styles and formats that clutter articles and often convolute the facts and make the articles difficult to read. SFTVLGUY2 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work to this page

This page could be significantly beefed up, per the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Most of the Musical information on Wiki is woefully inadequate, and employing a structure that expands upon Films might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding revisited

I have a strong aversion to bolding the names of songs within the synopsis. While we're free to write our own style, it is commonly accepted both inside WP and in the world at large that song titles are in quotation marks. I think that bolding anything other than the subject of the article is a bad, bad idea: it looks juvenile and there's no reason for it. If these articles were scholarly papers (which they presume to be), we wouldn't go around boldfacing things. The quotation marks make it easy enough to find the names of songs. — Music Maker 22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the names of songs with the synopsis was included to remove the need for a list of musical numbers with an article. If the numbers are in the synopsis, then a list is not needed (per Wikipedia:Embedded list). The bolding of these titles was to allow for easy location of song numbers when scanning the article. Although I am not entierly opposed to putting song titles in quotes, I fear that they may get lost among the prose and cause the addition of "Lists of Musical numbers". Is there a compromise? "Italics in quotes"? --omtay38 22:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guidelines at MOS:MUSIC should and will supersede anything we decide here. That page puts forth a very logical way of stating titles of musical works, and allows it to be standardized throughout all of WP. Opera synopses, oratorio synopses, etc. all follow that standard, and I think we should stick to it. I agree that putting the titles of songs in boldface make them easier to find, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to do it. The logical extension of that argument is that we should put the names of awards in boldface, the years of the productions, etc. Why should the names of songs be any more or any less important than the other information in the article? — Music Maker 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I included the bolding of song titles as a way of deterring the most common list addition to musical theatre articles: Lists of musical numbers. I do see that MOS:MUSIC states that songs should be in quotes, but I do believe this is a special case and, because we are writing our own style we do have some liberty to even suggest revision to the MOS. First and foremost, Wikipedia is a reference source that is to be read. If one cannot find the information he or she is looking for, we have failed our purpose. Perhaps the compromise of italicizing the song titles and putting them in quotes will fulfill both the requirement of readability and the requirement of being scholarly. --omtay38 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just browsing a few other wikipedia articles and stumbled upon Porgy and Bess again, an article this structure was very much based on. In that synopsis, the song titles are in quotes, but also in parenthesis. This solution does not violate the MOS at all and also makes them, perhaps, more readable and locatable than simply putting them in quotes. Ideas? --omtay38 01:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference sake:

Company (musical) - with bolding in synopsis
Into the woods - with quotes in synopsis
Porgy and Bess - with quotes in parenthesis in synopsis

Note that Porgy and Bess has a list of musical numbers and is an FA. -- Ssilvers 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't putting them in parenthesis negate the concept of working the title into the prose?

I agree with you that WP is to be read. Not scanned. If you read the article, you will have no problem finding the names of the songs.

And this is where we're going to disagree: this isn't a special case. What makes the songs in a musical any different than the songs covered by a particular band or on an album? This is exactly to what the MOS is referring: titles of songs.

It's not just WP's MOS, either. Chicago, Funk and Wagnalls, etc. all say that titles of songs are in quotation marks. It's an English-language standard. I'm all about flouting WP's rules, but the entire language is a different story....

BTW -- I didn't really like the parenthesis in the Porgy and Bess article. There are other things ("(a bystander)") that get parenthesis and it makes it slightly more confusing. I think that if the title can't be incorporated into the prose, then the accepted arrangement would be to put them in parenthesis. — Music Maker 02:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to point out that there is a difference between putting titles of a song into the prose and incorporating the title of a song into prose.

Putting: ...and then the company members sing "Opening: I Hope I Get it" in which they...
Incorporating: ...and then the company members sing of their "Hope to get it" in which they...

Pardoning my very poor examples, I hope these are able to demonstrate some of the difficulties in both putting and incorporating a song title into a synopsis. Putting removes the reader from the storytelling for the sake of the musical number while incorporating is very difficult to do with many song titles (i.e. Overtures, Entr'actes, things of that nature). The use of parenthesis allows the synopsis to tell what is going on during a song:

...the company members sing of their desires to receive a part from their audition ("Opening: I Hope I Get It") as they note the difficulties in securing a dancing job.

The difference in this situation (what makes it, as you put it, a special case) is that the song titles are presented within a story line. That is what makes musical theatre special. I believe you overlook this fact.

The reasoning behind putting the song titles into prose is twofold: First, Musical Theatre stories are told through the songs. To fully understand a story, one must know how the songs relate to the story. Short of a song by song breakdown, using the titles of songs in the synopsis accomplishes this goal. Second, lists of musical numbers add nothing to an article that one couldn't find on Amazon or iTunes in a CD track listing. Putting all the names of all the songs in the prose of the synopsis allows the reader of Wikipedia to completely understand the story with the songs included. Also, it prevents the creation of these "List of Songs".

I do not mean to sound confrontational nor do I mean to state that this is "the right" way to go about this, I simply speak from my own experience in browsing Musical Theatre articles on wikipedia and want us to do the best possible service to the Wikipedia community. The goals I am trying to fulfill are as follows:

Musical Numbers should be easily located in an article - If sombody's looking for the name of a song, they are going to "scan" not "read" an article
Lists of Musical Numbers should be avoided - all other lists are discouraged in this structure, this one is no different. Incorporating all the songs in the synopsis removes the need for a list of songs. If editors can't find the songs in the article, they will add them back in. Which leads to my next point.
This structure should promote useful articles - in my humble opinion, any reference source is only as good as it's usability. I have been looking for specific mention of "Musical theatre songs within synopsis prose of said production" in all the style manuals I can find and have found no mention.

Ok. Good. Sorry to rant and sorry to sound one sided, it's just that I'm very personally attached to this structure (I drafted the initial version) and don't want anything but the best to go into it. If simply putting the titles in quotes is the best solution, then great. Just wanted to speak my mind. Thanks for puttin' up with it. :-D --omtay38 02:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should incorporate the song titles into prose. I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't do that. I'm saying that putting them in parenthesis would break up the prose. To use your example: ...and then the company members sing of their ("Hope to get it") in which they... That doesn't make any sense.

As one can find lists of musical numbers on Amazon or iTunes, there's no reason to make the titles of songs any easier to find than any other information. That's just an argument for making them less prominent, IMHO. If someone spends 30 seconds scanning an article and doesn't have the patience to find the information that's in it, let them go to the next Google hit.

Boldface should be saved for the topic of the article and any major terms that follow with a definition. I just find boldfacing whatever detracts from the overall appearance of an article. GREATLY.

We're not going to agree. Let's just wait for other opinions. — Music Maker 03:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the song title should not be part of the sentence itself. In the example above, I would write: The characters each express the urgency of their desire to secure a place in the chorus line ("God I hope I get it"). -- Ssilvers 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-indenting for simplicity I must not have made myself clear, I do agree with you, we do not need to bold. However, I do think that we need to make the song titles easy to locate. Sorry if that wasn't clear, Cheers! --omtay38 03:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Hey. Even better.... :-D

It took me awhile to find a synopsis that had the songs only in quotation marks, but I found one at Blood Brothers (musical). The synopsis is horrible, but I think finding the titles of the songs is pretty easy.

I think what I've been trying to say is that bolding the titles forces you to find the names of the songs, even if you're scanning the synopsis for character names or whatever.

I propose this:

1. Titles of songs should be syntactically integrated into the flow of the prose, and placed only in quotation marks: (To the sleeping Meg, Joe bids "Goodbye, Old Girl", and Mr. Applegate transforms Joe into the younger version of himself.)

Disagree, sorry!

2. Should the syntactical integration of the title be impossible, the title should be placed in parenthesis and quotation marks: (The various characters state their wishes and their intentions for going into the woods ("Prologue").)

This would be my preference!

3. AT NO POINT should it be said that a character sings a particular song: (The song “Shoes Upon the Table”, sung by the narrator, begins.)

Yes! I strongly agree with this!

4. UNLESS the title of the song is a generic musical theatre song title such as "Prologue", "Overture", or "Finale": (The cast performs the "Finale", and Pippin is asked to set himself on fire.)

No, I do not think the synopsis should refer to the mechanics of the play. Do not say "Act II begins with Bob and Jim returning...." Instead, just have the heading Act II, followed by "The next day, Bob and Jim return...."

I agree; I was using this example for songs that are called "Finale" (like almost every Stephen Schwartz finale) or "Prologue" or the like. Keep in mind that some songs in musicals just have these generic titles. — Music Maker 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? — Music Maker 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't even need the "Unless the title of the song is a generic musical theatre song title..." is even nessicary as it is coved by the parenthesis point. (i.e. The cast entices Pippin to end his life in the most dramatic way possible ("Finale"). --omtay38 05:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely, just anticipating objections.... I used to sell cars.... — Music Maker 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I can't keep up with all this above, and I only read the first few paragraphs. I agree that song titles should be in quotes and not bold. However, having worked on a couple of hundred musical theatre articles in the past six months or so, and another hundred or so before that, I strongly feel that we need the "List of musical numbers" as a quick reference in musical theatre articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think stubs and start-class articles could have a list of musical numbers, but once a synopsis gets in there, they're redundant. Regardless of the "FAs don't have lists" argument, it just annoys me to no end to see articles with repeated information. It amounts to spoon-feeding information to people. If all someone is looking for is a list of musical numbers, there are countless places online to find that information. — Music Maker 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, Porgy and Bess, our only FA article, has a list of songs, and it is a useful reference if you are, say, trying to create a concert of music with songs from different shows, or just want to see, quickly, which song comes before another song.... ALSO: When people put songs into the synopsis, they often omit several. The song list makes sure that all the songs are listed in order and gives you a chance to drop footnotes about different versions, etc.

And like I said above, I'm not using "FAs don't have lists" as an argument. I'm saying that FAs should not repeat information. Furthermore, Porgy and Bess is an opera. It shouldn't even be under our purview. — Music Maker 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all of the above either, but let me add that quotation marks, not bolding, are definitely the standard in the English language. I also like putting the song names in parentheses, e.g. Jenny then arrives at her home to find her husband cheating on her ("Cheating"). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think the objective would be: Jenny then arrives at her home to find her husband "Cheating" on her. That's the point of "integrating the song titles syntactically" into the sentence. — Music Maker 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer, Jenny then arrives at her home to find her husband has been unfaithful ("Cheating"). It makes it easier to locate the song titles and distingush them from other "special" words that "might" be in quotes. ;-) I've now reviewed all this. Please see my other comments intervoven above in Bold. Frankly, having worked on the musicals pretty hard over the past 6 or 8 months, I feel pretty strongly about the list of musical numbers. It is very useful (although I agree that it is even more useful when the synopsis isn't very complete or good, which is the case in 90% of musicals' articles! Also, frankly, some songs do not have much to do with the plot, and it is just adding non-notable info to the synopsis to write a whole sentence about them just to include the title in the synopsis. In that case, I would leave the song name out of the synopsis and include it only in the song list. -- Ssilvers 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that song titles should not be bolded. Bold is used for emphasis only, and this is not a case of emphasis. However, I think that the songs are dangerously close to being lost in the synopsis if we just leave them in text. "Elphaba vows the she will perform "No Good Deed" again" does not make clear that it is a song, and, frankly, will get lost. On the other hand, "Elphaba says that she will never do good again ("No Good Deed")" makes clear that what we are talking about happens in the song. Equally, "Eva tells the citizens of Argentina not to worry about her, for she is "ordinary, unimportant", could give the impression that "ordinary, unimportant" is the song. We have to find the compromise between good syntax and well-formed prose and ensuring that the pertinent information is easily at hand. When we're writing about a musical, there is nothing more pertinent than its songs.

To clarify what WP:MoS says, you should integrate song titles into the prose with quotation marks when you are saying, for example, "Boyzone had a worldwide smash hit with the Lloyd Webber song "No Matter What", from the concept album for Whistle Down the Wind". What we're talking about is a specific (and, I think, pretty much unique) case. We're not (or shouldn't be) talking about integrating the titles syntactically into the prose (ie, not "Maria sits down and starts to sing "Climb Every Mountain""). In fact, thinking about it, it's no different to us saying "Prospero tells Caliban to drown himself (1.ii.345)", so we should treat the song titles as line references as we do for plays and poetry. I've not checked what WP:Mos says about this, but I know that this is what Hart's Rules (my bible when I'm doing "real world" copy-editing) says we should do.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we should put the song titles in quotation marks inside parentheses, outside of the general syntax of the sentence. They should effectively be seen as references, not a real part of the prose. West Side Story does it perfectly.

As for song lists - I am also in two minds about these. Lists for the sake of lists are bad, I agree. But, again, the songs ARE the musical. If, for whatever reason, the synopsis does not contain every song, or if there is additional, relevant content that can be included with the songs, a list is the best way to go (for example, songs that have evolved into others, moved around the musical, been added later). Of course, including the songs in the synopsis does not necessarily tell us who is singing what (in fact, if it's been done well, it shouldn't), so a song list would be helpful. I see that Wicked has a synopsis that includes the songs and two additional song lists, which is, undoubtedly, overkill. One song list in addition to the synopsis, though, would let us succinctly and clearly explain anything that needs adding. - Dafyd 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point in integrating the song titles into the prose is to show that, in good musical theatre, the songs are borne of the moment. To my way of thinking, if you can't fit the song title into the prose, you're doing something wrong (from the standpoint of the authors of the show, not the synopsis). I'm CERTAINLY not saying that we should say "Maria sits down and sings "Climb Ev'ry Mountain". I am saying that we should say "The Mother Abbess tells Maria not to give up on her dreams; to "Climb Ev'ry Mountain"." There's a HUGE difference. — Music Maker 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the current structure allows for that option while also allowing the ("Quotes in parenthesis") option. I believe both are valid and both can sound encyclopedic and un-encyclopedic in different situations. Would the current language on the structure page allow for synopsis to be written in the way you suggest? If so, are we good to remove the notice (you can revise your vote on the talk page of the main project page). --omtay38 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Compromise?

Subitted for your approval (these would be the revised versions of sections of the Article Structure):

Incorporating musical numbers in narrative

Often the story of a musical is told through the songs within it. Thus in the synopsis it is highly encouraged to incorporate the names of the musical numbers into the prose. The titles of the musical numbers should be "in quotes" per MOS:MUSIC. Musical numbers can be incorporated like this in two ways:

Using the title of the number in a sentence. - ...then, Horace Vandergelder informs his two employees that "It Takes a Woman" to make a household complete. (From the musical Hello Dolly)
In parentheses when the song title cannot be incorporated easily. - After the curtain call, the entire cast joins in sending the audience on their way ("Goodbye!"). (From the musical The Producers)

Note that either method can be used interchangeably. When considering both options, remember to choose the one that sounds the most "encyclopedic". For example, do not include a sentence just to incorporate a song into it if the sentence contains no other useful information. (i.e. Then the cast bids the entire audience "Goodbye!"). Also, it is encouraged to incorporate as many song numbers as possible into the synopsis.

I agree with the first paragraph above, but not with the "all or nothing" approach. I think the synopsis should name the songs that illustrate a plot point, and that for any other songs, reference to the list of musical numbers can be made, which would contain any footnotes or information about songs included or omitted in various versions. -- Ssilvers 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, point taken :-D --omtay38 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Analysis

This section is not purely a listing of musical numbers. Rather it is an analysis of the music within the musical. For example, the music section might contain a sentence like:

....

List of Musical Numbers

A list of musical numbers may be included in the article. Although not preferred, having a list of musical numbers can be very useful in many cases (i.e. stubs, musical revues and other special cases). Please keep in mind that, for a song listing to be considered encyclopedic, it should contain more information than just the titles of the songs themselves (who sings them, bluelinks to WP articles on them, and so on). Please do not delete lists of songs without first obtaining the consensus of editors by posting on the article talkpage and, if no editors are active at that talk page, the project's talk page.

I changed the "incorporated in synopsis" section to include the quotes per MOS:MUSIC. Also, changed the wording of the List of musical numbers section to be less encouraging of lists. I still want it to sound like a "good article" should not have lists, but that they are okay and acceptable under several circumstances. Comments? --omtay38 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few more changes. Since the general feel of song lists seems to be both:

I like using song lists, but can see how they can get out of hand
Song lists are very importaint and should be included.

I've revised the language to basically say "If you wanna add a song list, add a song list. Just make sure it's useful." That way articles with current song lists don't risk random blanking as a result of our structure while out of hand song lists are prevented also. And if an article really will gain nothing from a song list, it won't have one. --omtay38 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your openness to everyone's opinions here. I simplified the last paragraph above. I think that the next step should be to see if we can put our money where our mouths are: That is, we should edit a few articles, as a project, up to GA quality, and see if this project is really ready to roll up its sleeves and improve an article. A good one to start with might be Oklahoma!, since it is just a starter article, and its general popularity deserves a much better article. Or some other very famous musical with an article that is missing a lot of info. -- Ssilvers 15:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the revised section above, feel free to suggest changes/fix things if you'd like. If you think the Article Structure page is okay, I would love it if you did a quick copy edit (spelling, grammar, formatting) just for safety's sake. thanks! --omtay38 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like these. The song list guideline is, I think, perfect. I'm still not hot on using the song title in a sentence. "Horace Vandergelder informs his two employees that "It Takes a Woman" to make a household complete" does not tell me that "It Takes a Woman" is a song. Certainly, with editors whose spelling/grammar is a little out and don't get the capitalisation right, there's no way to differentiate that from normal quoted speech. I'd suggest that "Horace Vandergelder informs his two employees that a household is incomplete without a woman ("It Takes a Woman")" is infinitely clearer and less open to confusion. Again, just my 2 cents... - Dafyd 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you feel that, under the current writing of the structure, you would be able to change the synopsis to be your preferred method? (My hope is to make an outline that still allows for some flexibility but is a good reference point) --omtay38 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I'd not thought of it that way. Yep, perfect. - Dafyd 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least suggest that song lists be separated into columns by act so they don't take up as much room? I know markup confuses a lot of people, so maybe we can even create a template to do that. — Music Maker 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use the phrasing "song lists are discouraged, but acceptable if...." — Music Maker 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll incorporate some language about not having song lists take up too much room, but i don't want to "discourage" anything. If an editor finds a song list and the article has no mention of songs, the editor should not have to second guess themselves about adding it. --omtay38 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finalizing Article Structure

As Omtay38 requested, I went through the Article Structure page and did a copy edit for grammar and to eliminate repetition and streamline the prose. I also tried to reflect the consensus that has developed. Please review it and make any further changes, or raise any objections here. I think we are getting closer, and if everyone agrees, we can remove the "proposed" box from the top of the guidelines. As I noted, I have been toiling in the trenches of the musicals project for about a year, and very intensively in the past 8 months, editing hundreds of musicals articles (about 10,000 edits on articles in the past 8 months), and I have argued with deletionists who wanted to delete plot synopses (or cut them down to a paragraph) and lots of other information from articles, as well as fans and inclusionists, who wanted to include endless trivia, lists of ensembles and understudies in cast lists, and comparative song lists from ten different producitons of a musical. We really need these guidelines to help resolve edit conflicts and explain to editors that there is a consensus on at least the basic article structure. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read over, looks good! Much applause! You deserve a cookie - here's one!

Heck, take two!

--omtay38 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think things are looking pretty good over there, but I would make one final suggestion: that we remove the rationale behind doing things one way or another. I think it's a good idea to give people choices as to what to do, but saying things like "some editors feel..." or things like that makes it look like there is dissension amongst the ranks. While we've been bickering, I don't think its necessary to let people know that we've been bickering, and I would rather have a unified front. I know we've been trying to include all the ideas, but I can't help but feel that we're a bunch of actors without a director, trying to pull off a communal show (or, even worse, a bunch of directors!). The article structure is our show, and it needs to seem cohesive. I'm going to go through and make some final edits, and if there are no objections, I think we can finally start to get this implemented and focusing our prodigious efforts on actually writing an encyclopedia.... — Music Maker 21:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! (Crosses stage right) Just some theatre humor...yah...---omtay38 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dafyd's and Music Maker's changes look good to me. Please go ahead and remove the box at the top of the article, if you agree, Omtay. -- Ssilvers 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and then archive this MONSTROSITY of a talk page.... — Music Maker 22:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I was just thinking that we should probably say to use present tense in the lead section, or at least the first sentence. IE: "Oklahoma is a musical...." rather than "Oklahoma was a musical...." — Music Maker 19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, done, and I used your example :-D --omtay38 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! -- Ssilvers 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]