Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Templates/Archive 1

Initial setup

If anyone can get this to work, go crazy. — Music Maker 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what I did to make it work, the problem was with the example not the code. I think it was in the title, added "Wikiproject:" to the template title and it all worked. Also, put the " | " at the beginning of the lines in both the usage and the sample to create for easier data entry. omtay38 05:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The example at the bottom may not have all the correct information (some parts have the word test in them) I am doing a few tweaks to the template and want to have all the options filled to see how they work out. It will all be put back to normal once I'm done. Also, the template does not update with a preview so there will probably be numerous edits in the history before I get it just right. omtay38 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we should take off the imdb, playbill, and website as they are almost all production-specific. — Music Maker 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound's like a good idea, feel free to do so. I'm still working on some formating issues (i'm not as experienced on the whole infobox/template/everything else code as I should be but I do know HTML). I gotta go to bed now (it's 1:12 AM where I live) but i'll work on it again in the moring. My goal is to get it to display like the infobox on the Into the Woods page where all the names and titles fit on their own lines. This will allow for the best and easiest display but, as I said, I'm still having trouble getting it to do what I want. I'll see ya in the morning. --omtay38 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be honest -- no idea what I just did. — Music Maker 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping issues

Ok, so I spent the last few hours trying to get this thing to do what I want it to with absolutly no luck. The vesrsion right now will work and I was working on sort of nit-picky things but here's what I was trying to do.

Make the Width smaller - take a look at The Pajama Game article. The infobox is very small and unobtrusive. As this code is structured exactally like that infobox, I'm not sure why it isn't doing that.
Trying to prevent double lining - see the 1776 (musical) article. Some of the titles take up two lines making the infobox taller than it should be.

I've tried everything I could figure out how to do (which wasn't much by the way) and came up dry. If anybody knows how to accomplish these things (or another user that can help out and do so) that would be awesome. Thanks --omtay38 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why sometimes the field names become two lines. Are you guys set on having all the different award categories? These are just as production-specific as anything else. I personally don't like having a "Music & lyrics" field or any of that...I don't see any problem with enterring the same name twice. – warpedmirror (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might as well use separate music and lyrics fields if we can't fix the double line problem. Also, if we still include the awards section, i think a notice must be added to the template that only awards given to the musical as a work (i.e. book, lyrics, music) should be added and no awards related to a specific production (including actor/actress, longest running) should be included. This information could be included in the article itself, but are not needed in the infobox. If it seems to likely that these fields will fill up with production specific information, then I feel they should be removed. --omtay38 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the awards groupings so we didn't have to say "Tony Award for..." over and over. I guess I look at things to avoid redundancies -- if we feel things should be repeated, then we can do that. I agree that the notice should be added. — Music Maker 03:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My issue actually wasn't all the different fields, but instead for awards in general. But after some reconsideration, I think this will be perfectly fine. I suggest we change "Other awards" to "Misc. awards" though, because (in a rare case) if a musical doesn't win any Tonys, Drama Desks, or Oliviers, but still manages to win the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, "Other awards" will be the only thing that shows up. Other from what? See my point. Also, another field should be added for "Music, lyrics, & book" (i.e. Rent) if we do it this way. I would change/add all this myself, but I can't seem to get it to work... – warpedmirror (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics, music and book

I agree re: "Music, Lyrics, and book". I left it out thinking it would only be used once in a great while, but it would be apropos on 1776, too, though others ended up colaborating on the book. Agree re: "Other awards", too. I just wasn't thinking when I did it. — Music Maker 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of making the infobox look good, should we (dare I say) sacrifice lack of redundancy by just having only individual fields for "Music", "Lyrics", and "Book" (or Libretto)...not those three plus "Music & lyrics", "Lyrics & book", "Music & book", and "Music, lyrics, & book". I know y'all worked way hard working to get these all on one line. I'm afraid "Music, lyrics, & book" will not be that visually appealing on one line (if it can even be done). But feel free to prove me wrong. – warpedmirror (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That field would be used, honestly, SO infrequently. I was wrong about 1776 (I could have sworn I read somewhere that Sherman Edwards wrote music, lyrics, book, and orchestrations....) -- the only one I can think of is Jonathan Larson. I don't think we necessarily need that field -- I would strive for as little redundancy as possible. If a name has to be repeated on one infobox, that's fine.

I just think it's pretty common for one person to write both music and lyrics. I added "Lyrics and Book" for consistency -- that happens, too, but I think a little less frequently. Why not "music", "lyrics", "music and lyrics", and "book"?

— Music Maker 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there are many exceptions (see one of my comments on the Book vs. Libretto section). In some cases, we would need to have "Music & lyrics", "Lyrics", and "Book" section in the same infobox. Let's make it simple!

I agree with Warpedmirror. Let's just have Music, Lyrics, Book fields. But let's wikilink only the first instance of the name. --Usgnus 07:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. — Music Maker 07:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet action! I'll go ahead and change it :-D – warpedmirror (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason The Pajama Game looks good is that none of the field values is very wide. This is html/css instead of print, so the column widths are going to be fluid. One way around this issue is to make the box width a variable so that you can make the box slightly wider for special circumstances. Another (better?) workaround is to force line breaks in the second column. I wikified the infobox. It's at User:Usgnus/NavBoxTemplate and User:Usgnus/NavBox along with examples for 1776 with line breaks.--Usgnus 04:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. If it's alright, I'm going to replace the version in the sandbox with the wikified one. If the forced line break solution will keep the double line from happening, then that should be our solution as it is much easier to acomplish and to fix in badly formated articles. --omtay38 04:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an example at User:Usgnus/NavBox for H2$ with line breaks. --Usgnus 04:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make the "music and lyrics" not wrap? (It's possible that the lyrics and book does so also). Perhaps with the use of "&"instead of "and"? --omtay38 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, i'm also going to remove the word "Awards" from Drama Desk awards to get it to fit to one line also. --omtay38 04:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against removing Drama Desk awards in their entirety. They're only recently gaining in status and are probably not that well-known outside the US. Furthermore, I don't really know if the Olivier is the London award we want to use. There are three awards given in London theatRE, they've all been giving them for about 20 years, and I don't really know which of the three would be seen equivalent to the Tony. I think it's the Olivier, but, honestly, I'm not sure. — Music Maker 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good right now, but I thought we were going to remove the IBDB link as it's production specific. I would go in there and do it, but you guys seem to understand the code better than I do (which is to say, you understand the code...), so I'd rather someone else did it.
Also, that "venue" field was a hold-over from when it was set up for either a Broadway or West End show and can most likely go. — Music Maker 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and removed the websites and that venue and it worked (much to my surprise!). I'm gonna let someone else add the "Music, Lyrics, and Book" field as it would inevitably need some tweaking that it beyond me, but I think it's looking pretty good! I think we're close! — Music Maker 06:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that, too is a lie -- I left the venue field. It should be removed, but I'm not feeling that brave right now; I need to go to bed. — Music Maker 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book vs libretto

Should "book" be "libretto"? — Music Maker 15:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that "libretto" referred to the text of an opera and that the "book of a musical" was anything that wasn't a song in the musical. Also, on sites like ibdb book seems to have more common usage than libretto (although some are referenced as libretto). --omtay38 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Book" is more commonly used but could be confusing to the casual reader. For example, someone sees the Wicked (musical) page which credits Winnie Holzman for writing the book. But then they read it whas based on a novel by Gregory Maguire. They think "but the Infobox says Winnie Holzman wrote the book. WTF, mate?" Most casual readers may not know what a libretto is, but it could lead to less confusion. – warpedmirror (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Libretto:

"A libretto is the complete body of words used in an extended musical work such as an opera, operetta, masque, sacred or secular oratorio and cantata, musical, and ballet."

I agree that the term is more common when refering to something like Handel's Messiah, but I don't think it's any less correct to use it for a musical. I think if we're going to use it, the word libretto should be wikilinked somewhere early in the article -- preferably the lead paragraph.

The DAB page for book does have Book (musical theater) which redirects to Musical theater. The second paragraph of that article defines it "well":

"The book of a musical refers to the spoken (not sung) lines in the play; however, "book" can also refer to the overall dramaticness of a show. The music and lyrics together form the score of the musical; the lyrics and book together are often printed as the libretto."

A paragraph, which, frankly, is an assault to the English language. Dramaticness?

In fact, the way it's defined we can get rid of "Book and Lyrics" -- the book and lyrics are collectively the libretto. I feel this would be the right way to do things, though, perhaps, less clear overall. I think it automatically dab's book, but just following the links might not get you the best definition.

It would also allow the field "Music and Libretto" instead of "Music, Lyrics, and Book". Five fields total -- "Music", "Lyrics", "Libretto", "Music and Lyrics", "Music and Libretto" -- instead of the six we were thinking about.

If we go with "libretto" I would suggest changing the definition to "...body of spoken or sung words...". That might be the best move.

— Music Maker 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and do agree that the use of Libretto would simplify the infobox dramatically, however, on idb.com which copies their music directly from the pages of the programs for the musicals, I could find no use of the word libretto. It seems it is commonplace to use the word "book" in programs for anything classified as a musical. I have have found, at least in the world of musicals, that "book" is the more commonly used term. I feel that in actuality, fewer people will be confused by the use of the word book than by the use of libretto. I also found that with a quick definition search on Google, wikipedia is the only source that includes musicals in its description. Everything else only specifies opera with some sources even differentiating between the terms for musicals and operas. I feel that the term book would more accurately describe what we're talking about and confuse less people. If somebody does become confused by the term book, they're inside an encyclopedia and can look it up. If we're really concerned about confusion, we could wikilink the word from within the infobox. I understand why we might use the word libretto, but feel the word book better suits our needs. --omtay38 04:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I vote we use book. But I really really really think we should just get rid of all the combined music/lyrics/book fields and just have three separate fields. Sure, in some cases it can be redundant...but I feel that this way it's just more uniform and doesn't cause near as much formatting confusion that this has. And there are always going to be 2634749 exceptions to anything we do. There are bound to be musicals that have Person A credited as writing the music and partial lyrics and Person B writing the book and partial lyrics. That's going to look wierd if we have a "Music & lyrics" field and a "Lyrics & book" field for the same musical. The goal of an infobox is to give quick facts in an understandable format. Just my $.02. – warpedmirror (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"But I really really really think we should just get rid of all the combined music/lyrics/book fields and just have three separate fields." Very much agree with this. Keeps the infobox simpler. Incidentally, Oliver! is another rare instance of one person (Lionel Bart in this case) being responsible for all three. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might sound silly, but I remember being on the message boards for Phantom of the Opera on Prodigy fifteen years ago and people asking about the book that ALW and Charles Hart wrote -- people who didn't realize what the term meant and wanted to "read the book". I agree it's more commonly used, but I think it creates confusion for the uninitiated. Whereas with "libretto", I think that the context -- in juxtaposition to "Music" -- might end up being more specific. Meaning, I don't think people are going to see "libretto" and think "dog handler" -- I think they'll figure it out better than if we use a word they already know in a different context from which they're accustomed.

At the same time, I don't think the book to Man of La Mancha, for example, could accurately be characterized a "libretto". I think "libretto"'s high-falutin', and I would assume that it's only been recently that it's been used to refer to musicals. (Or, I would assume that it was used for operas and early operettas had fallen out of use until the 80s when musicals started becoming more operatic.)

Stick with "book". No reason to be different from anyone else when it isn't necessarily more correct to be.

— Music Maker 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with book. In musical theatre, I've only used "libretto" for something like Phantom of the Opera or The Woman in White where music, lyrics and book often go hand in hand. I think in general we should stick with "book". If there is really a huge contingent of people who don't know what this means, we should create an actual page (not just a redirect) at Book (musical theatre) and link it from the Infobox. Daydream believer2 09:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

As of right now the only line heading that takes up two lines is the "Olivier Awards" line. The best solution (and the only one I can think of) would be to shorten the name. However, the only way to do that would be to simply list the word "Olivier" and I'm not sure if that would convey the correct meaning. Opinions? --omtay38 16:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes up one line on my computer. – warpedmirror (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. — Music Maker 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I guess my browser's just different (I'm on safari in Mac OS X) --omtay38 04:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see...I'm on Firefox. What if we changed the awards fields to...say...Tonys (I think that's the proper term over Tonies), Drama Desks, and Oliviers? – warpedmirror (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Firefox as well.

I have a question. Could the infobox be rigged to put the year in the field? I mean, could it say "1968 Tonys"? If we just had to enter the year once instead of for each award, you know.... In my never-ending quest to avoid redundancy....

And let me apologize for all of this redundancy business. When it comes to writing, there are three rules that I live by, taught to me by three great teachers:

Mrs. Comer, 3rd grade: "Never use words you can't spell."
Mrs. Fellenbaum, 7th grade: "NEVER USE THE SAME WORD TWICE ON A PAGE." and
Mrs. McCarville, 12th grade: "When you can't think of another word, use 'aspect' or 'facet'." (Never fails.)

So, it's just a long-ingrained thing that makes me think I'm going to get a B if I use a word more than once, and, somewhere, Mrs. Fellenbaum is crying. So, again, my apologies.

Oh, and I don't care if we get rid of the word "Awards". Just so long as it's consistent.

— Music Maker 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Own Line

How about putting Awards on its own line centered? See the first example at User:Usgnus/NavBox. --Usgnus 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that there regardless of whether or not the fields are filled? — Music Maker 06:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if at least one awards fields is populated. See my new example 2 at the same page. --Usgnus 06:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the perfect solution! It would help break up the infobox to allow for ease of reading and would fix any (possible) double line problems because each heading would be very short. We could also include spaces for all (or at least the most important) awards and would be able to enter them into the infobox. Although that might become a little complicated in the code, we could always include invisible instructions,  , within the box to allow for ease of editing. --omtay38 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like. — Music Maker 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to do the five that have been mentioned? (Tony, Drama Desk, Olivier, Evening Standard, and London Critic's Circle -- awards given by the critics, yes, yes....) And also a Misc. so the four musicals that have won the Pulitzer can be mentioned? I think it's important -- that was the reason I started working on a new template for H2$ -- but I think five categories of other awards is a little excessive. — Music Maker 07:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's the potential for systemic bias creeping in by limiting the named awards to these major US and UK ones, and throwing everything else in as "other" or "misc". Awards should usually have their own place in the article (under "Reception" or whatever that section will be called) so personally I don't see why Awards can't be left out of the infobox, or perhaps be relatively free-form and very concise, such as "Tony (3), Olivier (1), Dora(6), Helpmann (1)" with possibly a pointer to the Awards section of the article for more detail. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, just putting the numbers doesn't convey as much information as it could. Furthermore, I think we've decided to limit the infobox to information germane to the work as a whole and not including acting or production information. The number would not necessarily be as impressive; it would say The Producers won 3 awards instead of the twelve it won. I think this might create confusion as the article would most likely state that it won 12.

However, I do agree regarding systemic bias, which is why I like the idea about the single field. — Music Maker 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I say leave the awards out together. a) Systemic bias is a real problem. b) I would imagine most pages have their own awards sections anyway, which can be as thorough as we'd like. c) I personally agree with MusicMaker: the articles are about the 'work' not the 'production'. A show can win all the awards it likes in Britain and fail in the rest of the world; failed shows can be revived as successes or successful shows can be revived as failures.

Unlike most articles about award-winning things, such as books or films, individual productions of a work of theatre are highly subjective and prone to change. But, that's just my view.Daydream believer2 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single field

I really like the idea of having a single Awards field with a free-form listing of all awards. --Usgnus 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a regular field, or with the heading centered as it is? I think if we center the awards under the heading, it might be nice. Or we could do it like a regular field. I think I like the free-form idea. — Music Maker 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free form like this (for H2$):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usgnus (talk • contribs)

How about a line break?

— Music Maker 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, either way. --Usgnus 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awards final decision

Single field, section with individual fields and a miscellaneous, or leave out altogether?

Single. --Usgnus 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Single field with line breaks. — Music Maker 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Productions

Should the city be added? We link to the theater which typically states the city in the first paragraph, but we may not have articles on obscure theaters in Berlin.
We've been operating under a basic assumption of a major New York production and a major London production, but what about something like Les Mis? Surely we'd want the original Paris production in the infobox, as well, as it was the premiere.
Should the info box have all major professional productions, or should we limit it in some way? Should a film be listed?
I think the city should be listed, but I think we should limit ourselves to New York and London, unless the premiere was somewhere else. I think mentioning the film might not be a bad idea.
— Music Maker 07:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The big franchise musicals (and oft-mounted classics such as Oklahoma!) will have literally dozens of productions worldwide in hundreds of venues. Sometimes a show will even change venue during a run, as in fact Les Miz did a couple of times in London. (It started out at the Barbican, moved to the Palace and is now playing at the Queens, all as part of its 20+ year run.) Factor in national tours (covering many, many cities/venues) this could get very convoluted. Maybe the infobox could just list major productions/tours, eg "1988 Chicago (premiere), 1989-1995 Broadway, 1989-1995 West End, 1992 Tokyo, 1990-1993 UK national tour, 1991-1995 US tour, 1992-1997 US/international tour, 1995-1998 Australasian tour plus other productions worldwide" with more detail (including venue) in the Productions section. Films could go in an Adaptations section in the main body of the article, but yeah - could also be mentioned in the infobox. There'll come a question about whether or not taped productions (eg the Les Miz anniversary concert or the Cats video vs the Rent or Sound of Music films) should qualify as an "important" production worthy of inclusion in the infobox, but again I reckon these could be handled on a case by case basis. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 07:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, Malfourmed. – warpedmirror (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we should just link to the city and not the venue? Just keep the name of the theater in the article? — Music Maker 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't feel like looking up all the national tours and such for H2$ since I'm sure there are a million, so here's an example for Throughly Modern Millie. – warpedmirror (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throughly works for me. — Music Maker 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Productions	1984 Concept Album 1986 West End premiere 1988 Broadway production 1990 US tour 1990 Chicago production 1990 Sydney production 1994 Swedish concert 1997 Melbourne production 2001 Danish tour 2002 Stockholm production 2003 Broadway concert 2006 Estonian production

This is what something like Chess would look like; it's a show (it could be argued) that had more success outside of the English-speaking world. There are more productions than this (Sacremento and Atlanta are mentioned in the article). Is this what we're looking for? We could, conceivably, not include concert versions (tho the 2003 Broadway concert had the likes of Josh Groban....), but I think for shows like this one, Evita, JCS, etc., that existed first as a concept album, it should be mentioned. IE: Tommy should mention The Who's 1969 recording. — Music Maker 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we leave out the word "production", but keep tour, concert, etc.? See third box. --Usgnus 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Productions	2000 San Diego premiere 2002–2004 Broadway 2003–2005 US tour 2003–2004 West End 2005–2006 UK tour

Looks good. Should we include the closing year or not? – warpedmirror (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we do, we would have to have some manner of denoting that a show is still in production. Personally, I like the one year. — Music Maker 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with including so many tours/productions in the first place, but I personally prefer the one year as well. Is this separate to the parts for opening and closing dates of the original though? Because I like those. Daydream believer2 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there won't be the separate opening/closing dates. We're creating a generic template that covers the show itself — not a specific production. – warpedmirror (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one year is a good idea because when you refer to a production, you typically say "the 2001 London production" not the "2001-2003 London production". — Music Maker 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Erm. I feel like I'm complaining but we really need to get this done everyone! I want to add infoboxes to pages but I'm afraid to since they'll change! Let's wrap everything up soon, shall we? – warpedmirror (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I think we're done, tho. Productions: one year, city (or Broadway or West End), line breaks. Awards: year, award, category, line break. Right? — Music Maker 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the Productions and Awards. --Usgnus 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Daydream believer2 03:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Name?

Should the new infobox be {{Infobox Musical}} or something new like {{Infobox Musical 2}}? It might be easier to give it a new name: we'll be able to see what pages still have the old box. Furthermore, this new box bears very little resemblance to the old one.
I know we're chomping at the bit to get this thing implemented, but I think we need to do it in the most logical possible way. For expediency's sake, just vote New for a new name, Old for the old name. In the meantime, I think someone could finalize the infobox — I think we have a consensus, there. — Music Maker 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New — Music Maker 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Will make for less confusion/formating issues with the old one --omtay38 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Old. Make sure the new box maps the old field names. Make a list of all pages that currently use the box and post on this talk page. --Usgnus 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New. After everything is converted, rename template back to Infobox Musical. --Usgnus 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra spaces between the title and the article

I apologize if this has been discussed previously but I'm pressed for time. If you'll notice with the current template that is being used for articles on shows such as The Pajama Game, Annie and The Phantom of the Opera. For some reason the template creates an extra space between the title and the first text to appear on the article. I was hoping that this could be corrected in this new version. Thank you. The Filmaker 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from the old template. We'll make sure the new one is okay as well. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Usgnus 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed finalization

Discussion seems to have died down on this page. If there are no other points to be discussed, I propose we move this template from the sandbox to the project's template page and begin adding it to articles. Please vote below either with Finished or Unfinished. If your vote is Unfinshed please state why you feel it is unfinished.

Finished omtay38 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished Daydream believer2 01:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished Djdickmutt 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. If necessary, we can always tweak it later. --Usgnus 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished as soon as someone makes the awards a single field (that was the decision right?). – warpedmirror (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It now has a single "awards" field. --Usgnus 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When can we start adding it to articles? I'm anxious and excited! Djdickmutt 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, let's get this show on the road! One more question: was the verdict on the productions field to include only the first year, or a span of years? — warpedmirror (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe the decision was just the opening year. (correct me if I'm wrong) --omtay38 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds good...how much longer do we have to wait to move it, lol? — warpedmirror (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(i'm outdenting because i don't want this to become unredable) I don't actually know when it's ok to call this vote closed. Of the 29 people signed on to this WikiProject, five have voted. That is not majority nor unanimous, however, may be the majority of the "active users". If we leave a quick note on the "active users" talk pages telling them something like "there is a vote happening, it will close on 48 hours" then we can close the vote in 48 hours. We may consider leaving it on all the participant's pages with somthing like "and also put "-active" next to your user name to show that your active". Just a thought (cuz I wanna get this going ASAP!). --omtay38 03:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the roll call we only five active members (strangely, not entirely the same five that have voted to finalize). It's been over two weeks, though. Are we ready yet? — warpedmirror (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Action

As the unanamous decision has been that this infobox is finished, I have copied the template to Template:Infobox Musical 2. I think it's time we start using it. --omtay38 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old infobox information

Since the new userbox omits production-specific info that used to be in the old userbox (e.g. choreographer, scenic design, lighting, etc.), with regards to article structure, are we incorporating this information into the "Productions" section of the article, leaving its inclusion optional, or just leaving it out entirely? Also, I was wondering about giving more fleshed out instruction regarding usage of the new infobox here at the new template discussion page.--Drenched 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]