Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive7-21-07

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Infobox Musical 2

I just removed this from the to-do box, the rationale being that within a week or so, we're going to move it to Infobox Musical. Rather than placing it in a bunch of articles that would eventually have to be fixed, just don't put it on anything for awhile. — Music Maker 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I closed TfD. I believe the end result is what you guys want. By the way, there is a Template:Infobox Musical 3 (but no 4, 5, 6, etc). I will leave it to you to decide what to do with it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'm keeping my eye on the TfD page, and, once it has been deleted, will perform the move. Any word on Template:Broadway-show? I know there was one editor who was concerned about its inclusion on one article (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). I'm probably going to nominate Template:Infobox Musical 3 now -- it's orphaned. — Music Maker 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the move was also done. Now that Template:Infobox Musical has the content of what was in 2. I will take a look at broadway if I have time later today. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, looky there.... So, what happens? Do we need to orphan 2 now? — Music Maker 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to explain a little. Template:Infobox Musical was deleted, and then Template:Infobox Musical 2 moved to Template:Infobox Musical. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like it is the consensus of this project to delete {{Broadway-show}}, except one editor User:Jeffpw. I don't want to get into edit war, so I'm going to keep a record of what was on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and delete the template.

{{Broadway-show|
image=[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|200px]]|
name=Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?|
theatre=[[Billy Rose]] Theatre|
opening=[[October 13]] [[1962]]|
tony nominations=7|
tony awards=6|
author(s)=[[Edward Albee]]|
director=[[Alan Schneider]]|
stars=[[Uta Hagen ]]<br> [[Arthur Hill]]<br> [[Melinda Dillon]]<br> [[George Grizzard]]|
closing=[[May 16]] [[1964]]|
}}

And the subst: result

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Broadway Show

Theatre	Billy Rose Theatre
Opening night	October 13 1962
Tony nominations	7
Tony awards	6
Author(s)	Edward Albee
Director	Alan Schneider
Leading original cast members	Uta Hagen Arthur Hill Melinda Dillon George Grizzard
Closing night	May 16 1964

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadway-theatre

Please check the template sandbox for some updates to {{Broadway-theatre}}. — Music Maker 08:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone care? If not, I'm just going to start using it.... — Music Maker 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't even know what this template is for. Is it an infobox for theatre buildings? I thought theaters were outside the scope of this project? -- Ssilvers 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is for buildings, which, yes, are beyond our scope, but this has nonetheless been on our to-do list for about a year. It was decided sometime last year that, even though they're not "ours", that we could collaboratively give the infobox an up-do. The current infobox isn't actually on any articles, and, while we don't intend on taking the articles from WP Theatre, I don't think they'd be mortally offended if we developed a viable infobox for them.... — Music Maker 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you put it on one article so we can see what it looks like there? BTW, an editor listified a lot of information on the various broadway theatres over the past year and also deleted a lot of information about productions at the same time. Take a look at the edit history of a few of them, and I think you'll see what I mean. I'd be interested in your opinion of what he did, and whether you think the information should be restored. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, you can see an example in one of my (numerous) sandboxes here. I don't know why the link at the top of the page is there; I'm going to have to have someone look at the code and figure it out for me. That is basically the article for the Majestic Theatre, which I cut and pasted.

Could you give me a diff either here or on my page showing me what else you were talking about? — Music Maker 02:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, not sure if anyone cares, but I added a "Previous Names" field, as many theaters have been known by other names. — Music Maker 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Musical 3

...has been nominated for deletion. You can weigh in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Musical 3. — Music Maker 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been deleted. — Music Maker 15:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Images at Wicked

A number of images at Wicked (musical) are slated for deletion. The images say that they are "promotional" images. Weren't they released by Disney with permission for people to use them in a non-commercial site like Wikipedia? If we don't provide some explanation soon, they'll all go bye-bye. Does anyone know whether these images can be justified, or whether they really ought to be deleted? -- Ssilvers 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all promotional, in that they've been used to illustrate newspaper articles and on posters and whatnot. So in that sense, I suppose we could justifiably use them to illustrate the article. I don't know if they were ever released as one specific press kit or whatever, and therefore their reuse limitations... Universal does Wicked, mind, not Disney... - Dafyd 22:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly try to add a summary of the use rationale to the images? It would be great if we can save these images! Thanks, and best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. "This image has been used in the press and various other media outlets to promote Wicked. It is a low resolution image of a scene from the musical, and is used specifically to illustrate unique elements of the production. The only available images of Wicked in performance are those taken by 'official' photographers, and for which the various productions own the copyright." Or there abouts... - Dafyd 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ssilvers 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical theatre

Everyone, please take a look at the newest edits to our flagship article. Is this bad listifying, or good formatting? I'm on the fence, but maybe I just need some sleep. -- Ssilvers 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. Two things I'd do would be add short blurbs about Chinese opera and Indian musical theatre instead of just having "see also" links, and drastically prune down the See Also section (as a general rule, it's better to have them wikilinked in the article prose.) I may do the latter right now. Crystallina 04:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Crystallina. Thanks for the message, but you did not understand my question. In the past few days, someone has made edits to the early sections of the musical theatre article, adding bulleted lists. I understood that this was not consistent with WP:EMBED. Should we revert? Please take a closer look at the recent edit history. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay -- you're talking about that list of differences between musicals and opera. Yeah, that's crap. I tried to undo the edit, but couldn't. I'd say feel free to rewrite. — Music Maker 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox needed

Can someone please put in the infobox at Guys and Dolls. Thanks! --Ssilvers 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (the technophobe)

I'm going through right now and infoboxing everything in any of the categories, as well as assessing. If there's anything (like G & D) that seriously needs one, lmk, but I'll get to it eventually.... — Music Maker 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers 07:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

West Side Story

This is the show that I chose out of the 10 trial shows. I have worked pretty hard on it for a week or two, and I have taken it about as far as I can. Can we now peer review it and see how my revisions worked under the new guidelines and what else can be done? Does anyone else have sources that can be added to reference any unreferenced assertions? What is the next step? -- Ssilvers 07:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks good; I'm about to go read it, now. One change I made was to the infobox: the Grammy award definitely does not belong, as it's not strictly a dramatic award. — Music Maker 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not even for the original cast album. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've only read some of it, but, before I get out my blue pencil, I'll throw some things here:

"Puerto Rico's in America." It's incorrect (and slightly offensive) to speak of "immigration" or "coming to the US". "Migration."
The proseline list of minor actors is unnecessary. The only name in there that will have resonance with the average reader is Liz Taylor, and, though she wasn't one, she can be mentioned when talking about the leads.
The list of characters is unnecessary; it's covered well enough in the synopsis. (And it's not like this is an unknown show -- most people have some sort of familiarity with the characters.) However, I like the list of Shakespearean parallels: perhaps they should be combined.

There are some slight organization issues within the individual sections -- nothing major: just requires the moving of a sentence or two. The lead section seemed a little choppy, and I don't think it needs mention of the names of the gangs. That just serves to make an already complex sentence more complex.

Otherwise, though, it looks like it's in good shape! — Music Maker 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some slight editing, but I'm wondering if the discussion of the tritone isn't a little confusing. If you're an average reader with no musical training, you'll read "blah blah use of a TRItone, which is an augmented FOURTH or diminished FIFTH." (emphasis mine) It might sound like we're talking about three different things. Maybe just explain it as "a difficult interval of three whole tones"? — Music Maker 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming from an only slightly music theory inclined person: perhaps adding wikilinks to approprate pages would assist the average reader in understanding "the use of the tritone"? (I'd do it myself, but i wouldn't know what would be helpful). --omtay38 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the tritone article isn't that great. I added a couple more bluelinks, but just about every musical term that has its own article is bluelinked. I agree that we don't need to say all three words that mean the same as tritone, but it is not "three whole tones". The first two notes (the first two syllables) in "Maria" describe a tritone, and the third resolves up half a step to the fifth. I'll see what I can do. -- Ssilvers 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the interval of a tritone is three whole tones. Three full steps. As in Maria, E-flat to F, F to G, G to A -- three whole tones separating the two notes. That's where the "tri" comes from. It's a little better now, but now it just seems like a lot of explanation. The problem also exists in the Bernstein quote when he refers to it as an augmented fourth, then we call it a tritone. However, it's not always an augmented fourth: it is in Maria and the ending, but it's a diminished fifth when talking about the key changes in Krupke. Perhaps, in the quote, after "augmented fourth" we should add "(tritone)"? — Music Maker 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes to the intro. I see now what you meant by "three whole tones", but the phrase is ambiguous, and the reader of this phrase might think that the tritone is composed of three separate notes, instead of just two. I think that, actually the word "interval" will be difficult to understand for many readers with no musical education. I tried to clarify further, and I would also suggest deleting the sentence about "common harmonious intervals". I don't think it adds anything to the discussion and is either too complicated for non-musicians or too elementary for musicians. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had responded to this a couple of days ago; must be that damn lysergic acid again....

I think we should probably remove the whole explanation. Just say he uses a tritone, that it represents unrest, and leave it at that. If non-musicians are interested in what that means, they can read the tritone article. Thats why we have bluelinks.... — Music Maker 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Song lists showing which characters sing each number; Character lists

I disagree with deleting the Character list (and character lists in general where they give more information than simply the names of the characters) because it explains things that are awkward to put into a plot summary. I don't agree with the attitude that readers know these characters already. The purpose of the article is to give an introduction about the show to people who know nothing about it, and also people who want to learn more about it. We must satisfy more than one type of reader. Also, you cannot tell from the plot summary which characters sing which songs. A song list noting which characters sing each song would, IMO, add to the usefulness of the article.

Therefore, I think that an important lesson learned so far from this "First 10 articles" exercise is that we should say in the Article structure guidelines that where there is a Character list that describes useful information about the characters that cannot be gleaned from the synopis, that character list should not be deleted. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can't tell who sings what from the synopsis, then it's poorly written. The whole reason for having a synopsis, other than giving a basic plot overview, is to tell the characters and who sings what.

Re the tritone: that's whay we have bluelinks. I say we just take out the whole explanation, any reference to fourths or fifths, and just leave it at a tritone and that it's dissonant. Not why.

And since it's just easier to cut and paste than to keep making the same argument:

Major roles/characters

A reader should be able to gain information about the main characters through the synopsis. For example:

* At this school, Elphaba meets Galinda, a blond, popular girl who does not, at first, take well to Elphaba's strange skin tone. (From the musical Wicked)

Long, detailed descriptions of characters are not needed (unless necessary to convey the story-line). Rather at the first mention of an important character, some effort should be made to convey the personality or characteristics of the character. If a story is complex, the characters confusing, or it is useful to give the characters' voice parts, then a list of principal characters may be given.

The only real reason to have a character list in the article is to delineate the Shakespearean parallels. — Music Maker 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I must disagree with you, as I explained above. And I do not know of *any* Synopses on Wikipedia that give a complete understanding of which characters sing each number. They may imply the answer, especially for solos, but I think your first assertion above is simply wrong. Anyhow, it is clear that you and I disagree on this point. What do other people have to say? -- Ssilvers 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my opinion is a little different: if the reader needs to know who sings what for any specific song, it'll be in the synopsis. (Otheriwise it's a bad synopsis). Otherwise, there isn't much need for the reader to know the specifics of who sings what song when. They can go out and buy the cd for that if they need to. In articles about films, they don't do scene by scene breakdowns of who's in what scene (a bad parallel I know, but still). I would say that, unless a character listing or song listing adds more than just the connection between the two, it's really unneeded. Just my opinion. :-D --omtay38 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, which offers guidance from a well-established, well-populated Project with many FAs as to how these guidelines might be written. I don't believe who sings which song ncessarily belongs in the synopsis; there should be a cast list, and songs can be indicated there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, a musical is more complicated than a film in this regard. In a film, there is generally only one cast member for each character. For a musical, there may be many productions, with many different cast lists. So I think we need one character list that lists the names of all the principal characters, and next to it either the name of who played the character in the original cast, or a historical casting table, like we use at the G&S project. The character list can also give vocal ranges for the more musically complex musicals. See, e.g., Iolanthe. Separately, is the question of the Song list or List of musical numbers, which, as SandyGeorgia notes above, should show the name of the song and which characters sing it. What I am saying is that deleting either of these lists removes information from the article that is of historical/encyclopedic interest. I do not believe that the Synopsis section can adequately cover these issues as clearly or in as useful a way for people interested in this information "at a glance". If an article is to be improved to GA or FA status, I think it needs this information. -- Ssilvers 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the character lists give editors an opportunity to provide information about the characters that may be too detailed or inappropriate for the synopsis. I also find the lists helpful because I can quickly get to specific information without having to read through the synopsis. Thanks--Broadwaygal 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Broadwaygal - particularly the second point. It seems to me as natural (and helpful) as listing the ingredients in a cookery recipe before going into the details of cooking them. Tim Riley 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a recipe book, though, and articles about foods on Wikipedia don't include lists of ingredients. Personally, I'm against character lists unless they are highly, highly condensed. We don't want more situations like this. (note the criticisms about "three too long lists". Crystallina 23:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to understand where you draw the line, what is your opinion on the character list at West Side Story? -- Ssilvers 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That one's fairly condensed and not bad. Although it might also work as a table like the first one in Rent (using the same example just because I remember it; this one wasn't objected to) with the La Boheme comparisons on the left and the character descriptions on the right. Crystallina 01:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we need to define when a character list is OK, and when it should be trimmed. I agree that only principal roles that involve some signficant speaking, solo or part singing or featured dance solos should be listed separately in any such list. -- Ssilvers 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all I made this same mistake just a little while ago so I may be able to add something to this. First we are attempting to form our own consensus for listing casts per Project Musical Theatre Article Structure (see below). Second...even many feature articles on the Project film still have cast lists. It appears this has become a very controversial subject. With films, I myself delete cast lists and put them into the info box. I dislike articles that are too "Listy". But it's also something many people are passionate about. I would prefere tables if a list must be used. The Project Laundromat may be causing this confussion as well as WP:NOT.--Amadscientist 07:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

The collaboration of the month page has yet to receive any nominations. But then again, that's understandable with all the work we've been doing around here. If it dosen't get any by the first, I'll just roll the selection date too next month (when things may have settled down a bit). Cheers! --omtay38 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Cast Lists

Hi all, Just stopping by to say I'm disappointed/confused as to why original cast lists are being deleted from some Broadway show articles. Casts are listed for movie and television show articles. And personnel is listed for record albums. Why exclude them from stage events? J. Van Meter 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I love character lists, especially when there are a number of characters, such as in this piece [Company]. Oh, well, looks like the guy who yells the loudest wins. (I have absolutely no intention of commenting further on the sad state of affairs that has developed. I sincerely hope my comment is not taken as "uncivil", and if so, I apologize in advance.)JeanColumbia 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC) (Copied from Talk:Company (musical))

To clarify, I'm not referring to character lists (which I have no problem with), but original cast lists. eg: Edna Turnblad - Harvey Fierstein, Sky Masterson - Robert Alda, Sir Lancelot - Robert Goulet. I'm trying to understand why they've been deleted in a few articles since they remain in many others. I really hope the deletions are not a trend since the casts are an important part of musical theater history and therefore, musical theater articles. J. Van Meter 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's been deleting them? I agree that they need to stay. Crystallina 00:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't some new policy. It's been User:MusicMaker5376 doing the deleting. (See The Boy Friend as one example.) J. Van Meter 03:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So, we can all agree, at least, on not deleting the "Principal" cast lists of *original* productions on Broadway or the West End (whichever is first)? Then, I suggest, that for subsequent productions, the most notable actors/starring roles be covered in prose in the paragraph that describes the production? Can we get an expression of majority consensus on this point at least? -- Ssilvers 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The original cast is important. Every subsequent revival doesn't need to be listed, though, as some shows go through many, many revivals. However, if somebody notable performs in a revival in a non-trivial part, they should be noted (for example, a celebrity taking over a lead or supporting role). Crystallina 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I absolutely agree with that. Original cast as a list, subsequent replacements/revivals in prose, mentioned in their specific productions. If "the community" feels the need to add further casts, something in the style of Wicked (musical) cast lists works quite well, as a separate article. - Dafyd 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input on this. Glad to read I'm not alone in my opinion. J. Van Meter 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions aside, it is the Wikipedia policy not to add "Laundry Lists". If you look at the style guidelines it clearly states not to creat cast lists. Instead to incorporate the cast into the plot section of film, television and stage shows. A list can be placed in the info box. "Laundry Lists" are being deleted as part of Wikipedias drive to clean these up. Sorry that this has not been stressed more to everyone.--Amadscientist 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are stating a conclusion, rather than a reason. We are discussing the article guidelines, which I believe are wrongheaded on this point. Just because you say this is a "laudry list" does not make it so. In the opinion of all the other editors who have commented above, the original principal cast list is not a "laundry" list, it is an "essential" list. The Synopsis might mention the principal characters, if it is comprehensive, but there needs to be a list that shows the original cast names next to the name of the character that they played "at a glance". -- Ssilvers 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't read all of these. I am not trying to state a conclusion, or to pull apart consensus. Just to add comment about the style guidelines and WHY so many cast list ARE being deleted. I have asked for clarification on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat discussion page as to whether cast list should be deleted but perhaps it needs to be readdressed specificaly to where a particular Project consensus differs. Also I thought the Infobox was the "At a Glance" location. Is there a reason Actors cannot be listed in the info box as playing their character? Such as Tim Curry as Frank N Furter?--Amadscientist 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actualy I am wrong about style guidlines that was for FILMS we here at this project have yet to produce a style guideline and this discussion must be apart of that. I stand corrected on that. However we still have the problem of Wiki Clean up Editors coming in and incorrectly deleting castlists on Musical Theatre (I gotta get my projects straight). We may all want to weigh in over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Laundromat Discussion page to clarify that the style guide lines for this project are being defined differently and that we (I'm in agreement) believe that the list on those pages are "essential"--Amadscientist 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I am VERY much for a comprehensive list of Production credits as well, Set Design, Costume design, and even us poor Prop Designers that never get a mention unless it's buried very deep.....but that's not gonna happen. So I'll hold out for the cast lists on Musical theater as I used to be an actor and singer and think it is somewhat insulting not to at least list the Main cast in either list sytle or in Tables!--Amadscientist 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Heyo everybody. So here's what I think (and again, only my personal opinoin). Basicaly: Lists have their place. Cast lists, song lists, character lists, and production lists can be very helpful to the wikipedia reader. Now, allow me to qualify:

Lists are much more helpful with other information. Not to say that a simple list of characters isn't helpful, but its much more helpful to have, say, a list of characters with descriptions. And, to be honest, nobody really cares about "Munchkin number 5" in Wicked. So perhaps a "Main Character list, with descriptions" would be helpful.
Prose is more informative than a list. If the same information that can be covered in a list is already covered in a paragraph, the paragraph is (most likely) more useful. It simply will have more, for lack of a better term, qualitative information than a simply quantitative list.
Having too many lists is confusing Take a look back at some of the earlier versions of Wicked (musical). With so many lists, it's very hard to pick up important information.
Space consuming lists should be reformatted Wikipedia has tables, columns, and other easily accessible formatting options to make list not take up a lot of space.

In short, here is my proposed action: Have no "ruling" (on the Article Structure page or otherwise) that says lists are bad, delete them. Instead have something that says "Lists are a helpful communication tool if they are not intrusive, or space consuming and add in as much information as possible. Lists are not to be deleted simply because lists are not allowed. No list from an existing article should be deleted unless the "important" (we should define what is "important") will still exist in the list-free article. Likewise, Lists should not be added unless they add as much information as possible to an article without repeating any information or impeding the easy readability of an article." As always, just my two cents. BTW, as much as we sometimes get heated in our discussions in this project, I am very glad about the detail in which we discuss things. I always know that when we do land on something, it was well thought out and received much input. Cheers! --omtay38 06:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Omtay, thanks very much for the clarification. Mad Scientist, please click around on this project's navigation boxes on the right side of the the project page. You will see that, yes, we DO have new style guidelines, and also, YES, this discussion is part of our attempt to refine and clarify them. It is not helpful, IMO, to try to get people to discuss our guidelines at OTHER projects. All discussion should be here or on the appropriate page of THIS project. You will also see lots of discussion as to why we have already agreed that our infoboxes should be very short, and that production information needs to be in the articles themselves, rather than in the box. Musicals may have MANY productions, and that complicates the presentation of production-specific information.

Omtay, as to your suggestion, I think that we need specific guidelines, rather than principles, to guide editors on the three basic types of lists that we are talking about. It is a very finite group of issues, so lets deal with them specifically in our guidelines. I do agree, as a principal, that lists with other information in them are more useful than naked lists.

Cast lists:I think there is a clear consensus here to keep cast lists that show the name of the original B'way or West End cast members next to the name of the principal roles. I think we also have a consensus to delete from those lists the names of the actors in the ensemble/chorus and understudies, unless they are notable. For subsequent casts/replacements, I think we have a consensus to delete them. Again, no one needs to add them, but our guidelines should be clear that members of the Project have agreed not to delete them. BTW, if someone is good with HTML, there are ways to create historical casting charts, and I refer you to an example at Iolanthe, although I am hopeless at HTML myself. Since this consensus is clear, I am adding something about this to the guideline page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure)
Character lists: While some characters may be listed in the Synopsis, and the names of the principal characters may also be in the Cast list, I think that in SOME cases, a list with the Principal roles shown, and next to it descriptions of important information about those characters, as at West Side Story or The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, is warranted and should not be deleted. This does not mean that anyone has to ADD a list, but if there is one there, I do not believe that anyone should use our style guidelines as an excuse to delete it.
Other production information: I think that our articles always do and should give information about the directors of productions and, where there is significant dancing, the choreographers. As to set/lighting/music direction, etc., we often give this information, but sometimes only do so when there is a notable (i.e., bluelinked) designer. Again, I generally would not delete this information, especially if its given for the original Broadway or West End productions, but I also would not listify it. Since musicals may have many significant productions, the production info for each production is much less important than in, say, a film article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood what I was attempting. I think I may be better of removing myself from this project. Thank you.--Amadscientist 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guys. Sorry I was away this weekend; my internet has been spotty at best. First, I want to apologize if I ruffled any feathers. I was deleting cast lists because that's what I thought had been decided in the article structure. Please don't make it sound like that's all I was doing -- I've been adding infoboxes to at least four times the number of articles whose cast list I deleted, and doing general cleanup and assessment. Second, if we want to have cast lists of some sort, fine, but I would suggest we use a concrete number or characters like "6 or so". (Well, I guess that's not really concrete....) Or we find some way to define what constitutes a "lead". The thing I don't like about cast lists is that they rarely have any ACTUAL information in them. In some of the ones I deleted, there were thirty names and maybe two bluelinks. In some of the older shows, no one this side of 1949 has even heard of some of those actors. I really don't see the point in including their names -- especially when we link people to ibdb. Also, it would seem to me that a cast list and a character list can be consolidated into one list:

Joe Gillis -- Sam Waterston -- A down-on-his-luck screenplay writer
Norma Desmond -- Glenn Close -- A washed-up silent film actress

(Yes, I know it wasn't Sam Waterston, but I can't think of the guy's name right now....) One of the things, too, that I think we should discourage is this "replacement cast history" popping up in some of the articles. If a notable actor has taken the role, this can be noted in prose, but a historical account of every person who has played the part is simply useless. — Music Maker 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of that (except for the 6 part, since sometimes it's 4 and sometimes it's quite a few, as in "Company" and "West Side Story"), and I especially agree with the part about how MusicMaker has been working very hard on adding infoboxes, assessments and columnarizing long lists. Thank you very much! I would say that it's a little awkward to put the "original" cast in with the character list. I suppose you could make the heading something like "Characters and original Broadway cast." I would also put the actor's name after the character description. But I think we can all agree that the real abuse is in the listing of replacement cast, understudies, ensemble, and multiple full-blown cast lists of local subsequent productions; and the tossing of lengthy and totally non-notable trivia into the character descriptions. I agree that in those cases, prose is the way to go, and bluelinks should be the guide to who is notable. However, I would like to point out that some very important older (dead) actresses and actors are not yet bluelinked precisely because people have forgotten about them. I have created articles on several dozen of them, for instance George Grossmith, Jr. and Gertie Millar. I keep seeing reference to a famous old comedian-actor named Arthur Roberts from the end of the 19th Century. Apparently, he was wildly popular in his day, maybe like Groucho, or at least Robin Williams. But we have forgotten about him, and no one has started an article for him yet. But I am certain that he is notable, so I have begun to link his name when I see it, and whenever we get an article (soon!), he will be blue. Phyllis Dare and her sister both need articles. Lots of others, but all in good time. Best regards to everyone, and thanks for working so hard to improve this project. -- Ssilvers 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On a perfect Wikipedia, bluelinks would be a good indicator of notability, but they're not. There are two problems. You have the non-notable people with articles (not so much of a problem here, though), and then you have notable people without articles. I mean, right now we even have Tony Award winners and nominees without articles, something I've been working on for a while now.

Personally I'm of the opinion that if somebody has a major role in a Broadway production that's equivalent to them having a major role in a film production, and thus they would be notable enough for an article. WP:BIO mentions as much. The problem is systemic bias. (And this is just for US-based performers. For theatre in other countries the undercoverage is exponentially worse.) Crystallina 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's why I recommend a full list of the original Principal B'way or West End cast (people with significant speaking, singing, or solo dancing roles), supplemented by the people who played the "starring" roles in other major productions, even if not bluelinked, supplemented by pretty much anyone else who is bluelinked (if we decide they're not notable, we should put them up for AfD). Then, if it turns out that someone notable gets a new article later, they can be added. See the new language I put into the Article structure guideline. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

However, I think we need to decide what constitutes a principal cast member. I think you would contend, for instance, that Ofc. Krupke is principal, though I would not. He doesn't further the plot, he's in only a handful of scenes, and, though he has a song about him, he doesn't actually sing. He's mainly a device to have some sort of representation of authority in the show. I think that any generalization of what would be considered a lead would be naturally subjective. Is there any way we can address this? — Music Maker 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's somewhat subjective, but I don't think this needs to be an exact science. My suggestion is that if you are writing an article, you don't have to add the Krupkes of musical theatre to your list, but if another editor decides to add him, I don't think you should delete him. But, if someone adds a character that is clearly chorus/ensemble, then, yes, we should all delete it. There are 1,000 musicals articles, and someday there will be much more than that; but there are only a handful of us. So why argue about stuff at the subjective margins. Since we can agree on the core principles (deleting cast list from the Kalamazoo production; adding info to articles with no synopsis or missing other essential and easily accessed info; columnizing song lists and long character lists; deleting info on amateur/school productions; etc.), it should be easy for us to make the musicals articles *much* more uniform than they are right now and improve many of the stubs to starts and starts to B-class (at the same time, we should try to get a few articles up to GA or even FA - an exercise from which we might learn some interesting things about our guidelines). So, let's agree on what we *can* agree on easily, take care of those important things, and then, if we're all still alive at the end of that, come back to the finer points for debate and a beer. -- Ssilvers 05:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Grr.... Okay, I'm a deletionist. I just think that when trying to impart information to the huddled masses, that less is more. I don't want to say that I won't delete anything; I don't want to have to hold myself to that. But, generally speaking, as long as the list isn't unwieldy, I won't delete it or items off of it.

But we need to guard against articles being too listy. By my count, we're allowing FOUR lists -- that just seems excessive to me. — Music Maker 06:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No article for (the correct) Michael Mayer

(If this note belongs better on a different Talk page, feel free to move it.) There is at present no article for Michael Mayer (director). There was a single article named "Michael Mayer," but that was an article about a well-known electronica musician; I think most theater and film people were simply wikilinking "Michael Mayer" and assuming it was the man most of us consider the Michael Mayer, without realizing that other arenas have their own "the" Michael Mayer. So I created a disambiguation page for the name (there was a third Michael Mayer who sometimes goes by Mike) and just now finished going back and making the links about the theatrical MM direct to the not-yet-created article. I thought I'd post a message here, as I suspect once people realize that the Tony-winning MM has no article after all, there will be one tout suite. Lawikitejana 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects gone crazy and lack of pages

Why is there a redirect to Stagecraft for a search for Theatrical Production? They are NOT the same thing. Also there should be a page for Stage show as well since not all stage shows are theatrical productions. Come on, we do want a full and comprehensive listing don't we?--Amadscientist 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)--Amadscientist 05:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means, write an article on Theatrical production to replace the redirect, and one for Stage show, using WP:RS, and then other people can contribute to it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have begun both stubs and will add neccesary citations, catagories and project links shortly, but encourage everyone to contribute PLEASE untill I do or unless someone else gets to it! Thanks!--Amadscientist 06:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical numbers... numbers

Just a random thought as I go through these articles: I think we should advise against numbering the musical numbers, and, instead, just bulleting them. It's nitpicking, I know, but, as I'm sure we all know, the musical pieces in the score are usually numbered, and, if we're not going to use the numbers from the score (which would create difficulty), we probably should just leave them unnumbered. — Music Maker 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles needed

If anyone is looking for articles to create, Michael Gore and Dean Pitchford are both conspicuous redlinks. They're the guys who wrote Fame, Carrie, the screenplay for Footloose and some of the songs, and about a zillion other things. If someone gets to them, great, if not, I can do it when I'm done infoboxing.... — Music Maker 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Should we list the nominations, too? I think almost every article I've seen lists the nominations and notes the winners. However, after working on Mary Poppins (musical), I don't know how great an idea that is. It was nominated (by my count) for 50 awards, and only won 7, so there's this gargantuan list at the end of the article, with only the errant (WINNER). And the infobox page lists an obscene number of awards that are appropriate for the infobox, which, therefore, would make production-specific awards of these types eligible for entry under this section. The structure says "If this list becomes too long, it may be shortened to the more notable awards," but what does that mean? The more notable award or the less production-specific category? — Music Maker 05:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should only list nominations for Tonys and Oliviers. All the others, we should only list winners, and in fact, I wonder if we should list anything other than Tonys, Oliviers, Drama Desk and whatever award is the MAIN award in a musical's main venue. For instance, if a musical only played off-B'way, then Obies can be listed, but not if it later went to B'way. But, I guess, if we DELETE a bunch of awards, we should leave the EL to the award site. -- Ssilvers 06:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, by the way, I would support cutting down the awards in the infobox to ONLY Best Musical. It's gonna be listed again, probably twice in the article. -- Ssilvers 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, Best Musical is production-specific as, in most cases, they are given to the producer of a specific production. (They sometimes go to the authors, too, but not always.) The idea behind the infobox is to represent the musical as a literary work, and, thus, the Best Score and Best Book are really the only awards that go to it as a work. But, what I meant was that it lists, for example, Canadian awards. Which is fine if it never went to Bway, but, otherwise, I think too specific and NN.

And my whole thought re: the ridiculous list of awards is that if a reader REALLY wants to know who won the Outer Circle Critic's Award for Best Costumes, they're going to go to the OCC website. Or Playbill. They're not going to pull up every article for new musical in WP. — Music Maker 06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Productions in the Infobox

I don't think film versions should be listed as productions in the infobox for the musical. Can we add that to the guidelines? What about the TV recordings of a musical? Shouldn't we limit infobox productions to major stage productions? See, e.g., Carousel (musical) -- Ssilvers 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Again, as representing the musical as a literary work, I think the film and television productions are important in the infobox. There's no reason it should only represent stage productions. — Music Maker 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Help re: Vandal!!

This guy is undoing MusicMaker's edits!: [See User:209.247.22.164 -- Ssilvers 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what to do about that... — Music Maker 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing what is being done - reverting the edits and leaving a message on the IP users talk page seems the best way to deal with. Perhaps it might help to point them in the direction of this project, and try to get them to talk about any possible changes on here rather than doing what they are doing? Just a thought? (And excuse my barging in, I only joined the project this week) ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the user is a sockpuppet for User:SFTVLGUY2. How do we make a complaint? For background, see the discussion at Talk:New Girl in Town. -- Ssilvers 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a complaint, first at WP:AIV; they told me to bring it up at WP:AN/I, which I've done. It doesn't seem to have been attended to, yet. But, thank you for your quick work undoing those edits, Tangerines. Much thanks. — Music Maker 18:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also thanks to Bibliomaniac15 and others who helped. -- Ssilvers 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD

Came across a dupe article of one that was deleted previously for Menopause The Musical. You can weigh in here. — Music Maker 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just Joined - Rating Articles

Hi, have just joined this project after lurking for awhile. I have been rating a load of articles this afternoon and hope ive been doing alright. I have tried to stick to guidelines the best I can.

Found a problem with the "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" page. It linked to the book which had a small bit of info on the musical. I deleted the project tag on this page and put it into the article about the musical version. Not sure if this was right so just checking, and the book page will probs need to be changed.

Also added the "List" tag to all of the list articles. Was wondering whether the tony award specific awards should also go in this catagory as there is not much to talk about individual awards rather than who has won them right?

Also the page "Zuleika" (Yeah, trust me to browse the very last page :P) needs disambiguating or more information on it but I thought id leave that to someone else as id probably mess it up.

Hope you guys can keep me right but been having fun so far :D. -- Mark E 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. It looks to me like you're doing a good job with the assessments. In any event, if someone disagrees with an assessment, they can always change it (although I hope people will give their reasoning if they change assessments). Yes, you're right that the project tag should go on the talk page for the musicals article rather than the article for the related source book. I'm not sure what your question is about the Tony awards. Glad you're participating in the project! -- Ssilvers 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

About the tony award pages I just mean should they be given a "List" rating rather than a "Start" rating, because there is only limited information that can be given for them.Mark E 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand the list rating is that it should be saved for articles that are entirely lists and have no hope of becoming articles. So, I dunno.... I think those Tony Award articles could conceivably become full articles, so, personally, I'd consider them stub class. — Music Maker 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DONE!!!!! Rated all articles.. Phew that was interesting. Mark E 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WHA?!? That's craz-E.... — Music Maker 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Reality Musical Tv Shows

Can we add Reality Musical Tv Shows to the project. I mean programmes like How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?. Any thoughts? Mark E 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a musical? I think it is not simply any entertainment that includes songs from a musical. Were the Carol Burnett Show, or the Sonny and Cher show musicals? No, I don't think so. Even a revue is a show that tries to bring the songs into an overall structure that relates them to each other somehow. I'd say No, a reality show about a musical, or featuring some numbers from musicals is not under the rubrick of musical theatre. -- Ssilvers 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm not so sure. Take a look at that program. It's not really comparable to the Carol Burnett Show or the Sonny and Cher show. Its a reality show, American Idol style, to find a person to play the character Maria in an upcoming production of The Sound of Music. Whether or not we include this show, and others like it is something to consider. These shows are becoming more popular (Grease: You're the One that I Want!). Honestly, if we truly are "Wikiproject Musical Theatre" then these articles about TV shows, about musical theatre are under our umbrella. Honestly, I don't see much of a problem in putting our project tag on them. Having an article with our project tag on it does little more than attract other users to this project. It doesn't mean we have to pay special attention to it or write up new style guidelines to edit it. But if somebody checks the talk page for the show and sees that this awesome wikiproject exists, all the better. --omtay38 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats what im thinking Omtay38, the more articles on Musical Theatre the better! Due to that tv show a production sold out months in advance is now playing at the London Palladium. With the Any Dream will do programme it was a highly watched programme and created alot of buzz.Mark E 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your point and have no problem with this. But I note that it is very annoying to people who have worked on an article when a project comes along and sticks a tag on their article and then doesn't work on it. So I disagree with the concept that we should just go putting our tag on articles, unless they have a real connection to musical theatre and are not covered by other projects that are working actively on them. The Biography project is, IMO, one of the biggest offenders in this respect. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While those shows turn my stomach and make me want to vom on anything within reach, I think that, unfortunately, they fall under our scope. — Music Maker 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub fix

Just wanted to let everyone know that I just revised the stub tag slightly. It said "See Wikiproject Musical Theatre," and I'm not sure why. I wouldn't want to imply that someone would have to check in with us before they expand a stub, so I took it out. If anyone disagrees, they can revert. — Music Maker 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was meant to point to the article structure guidelines to give people an idea of ways to expand the article? -- Ssilvers 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, other stub tags don't do that. To me, it felt like "Don't do anything until you check in here, first," which is definitely against WikiPhilosophy.... — Music Maker 00:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Musical Theatre

I thought we deserved one so I got it up and running. I'm still doing a few tweaks here and there, but feel free to take a look. All comments are well apprecieated. I plan on adding it to the active list of portals before the end of the night. Cheers! --omtay 38 01:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So i've pretty much finished up the portal. Take a look, I'd love some feedback (or feel free to change things for yourself). Most of the articles up I picked at random but I think it's a pretty good set. Also, if nobody objects, I was gonna place a small, unobtrusive link to the portal on {{Musicals-project}}. That's all. Cheers! --omtay 38 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great so far, the only thing I'd change is the fact that the layout seems cluttered. (I have no idea how to fix this though - layout was never my strong point.) Crystallina 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by cluttered? I know that sometimes there is random whitespace depending on which articles are displayed... might that be it? --omtay 38 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kind of sidestacked and pinched. But otherwise it's great. Crystallina 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions to the Avenue Q article

A load of information has been added to the Avenue Q article (I follow it closely as it is one of my fave shows) and its about a Manila production, Tel Aviv production, Licensing and school editions etc and it has messed up the article and now has TWENTY sections to it. Anyone want to attempt to clean it up? I would but im still only just starting to get used to wikipedia editing and don't want to mess it up lol. Mark E 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to list the international professional productions, although all those redlinked names should be unlinked. I deleted the commercial information about MTI, and the school production information was not notable, so I deleted it. I reorganized the headings in the section. This article in particular tends to accumulate fancruft, so it's good that you're watching it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks a hell of alot better! Good Work!

Good Article Candidates?

Have went through most of the "B" rated articles and found some I thought could (with a bit of work) become Good article status. What do you think? It's about time we had another "Good" musical article.

Bernadette Peters
Elton John (With Citations and abit of rewrite)
~~Les Misérables (musical) (With work on the Characters section)~~
Into The Woods (With abit expansion)
~~Musical theatre (Probablys the best candidate)~~
West Side Story (Has just been redone but i think its very good)

I'd say that Bernadette and West Side Story are closest, and your best bets for a GA project. Musical theatre is almost completely unreferenced and relies, really, on its numerous bluelinks to the musicals mentioned. I think actually, that musical theatre would be the most difficult article to get to GA level, and I suggest putting it on a back burner unless you are hot to start a major-league referencing project on it. Les Mis is sort of a mess and has scary fancruft, and Into the Woods is 'way too slight, although it is a pretty tight little article. My feeling is that to go from B-class to GA, you have to actually go to the library or sit with at least 3 or 4 serious reference books and a bunch of articles on a show and add some serious and well-referenced material on the genesis of the writing of the show, the historical background of the market into which the show was introduced other relevant historical information, a good discography, real production information, including why the producers decided to go into each new market, etc. So, if you have the time to do this sort of library research, go for it. My own preference, because I don't have easy access to library materials or a substantial library of musical theatre books of my own, is to try to improve Stub and Start articles to the B-level (although I am happy to proofread/copy edit as needed). Thanks for all your hard work on the project! -- Ssilvers 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur re:Les Mis. Way too unstable to be a decent GA candidate.

Disagree as to what needs to be done to get an article up to GA. I worked on the Phish article rather diligently just before it made it to GA. When it was promoted, it really didn't have much more than citations from one website. (An extremely comprehensive website, but still....) It's better cited now, but when it was promoted it was a different story.

Out of your list, I'd say that West Side is the closest. However, I think that Miss Saigon is pretty close, too. It needs a section on the music, but I think it's in pretty good shape. Into the Woods is pretty bad. Waaay too listy and completely uncomprehensive. — Music Maker 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't sneak something through GA-review without doing adequate research, I'm saying that you're only cheating your readers (I'm not saying this was true of Phish or any other particular article, just in concept). A GA article *ought* to have substantial library research in it. I just had a situation where an article that I did a lot of the writing on was promoted to GA class, even though it was woefully underwritten, and then the same editor nominated it for FA, and it looked like it was going to pass! Even though it was my article, I opposed its promotion and am working hard on it to make it into an article that deserves to be promoted. -- Ssilvers 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean now about the musical theatre article, i never gave it much thought and just thought it looked very good and had alot of relevant information. I have alot left to learn about wikipedia, and since I know nothing about Bernadette Peters except that she was in Into the Woods at one point i don't think I could update the article, but I must say it is very well written. The Musical theatre project as a whole seems to be very unrepresented in terms of Good/FA status, so even trying to get some more can't be a bad thing.Mark E 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind a self-plug, Sarah Brightman is a GA. That's at least partially related to musical theatre. Crystallina 04:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

She certainly is within the scope of this project. I added the project tag to her talk page. Does anyone know how to do the nifty thing that combines all the project tags into a smaller multi-tag? -- Ssilvers 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. It's a wonderfully amazing template :-D --omtay 38 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Crystallina, do you know of any other musical theatre actors whose articles are missing the project tag? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 05:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ssilvers there are quite alot but there is something i must ask before i start adding them all - How well known in the musical theatre industry must they be in order to become part of the project? Lemme use one of my fave shows, Avenue Q as an example.

Rick Lyon, Natalie Venetia Belcon, Jordan Gelber, Ann Harada and Jennifer Barnhart were all in the original cast of avenue q. Most of them have worked in other musical theatre, Ann Harada was in the original seussical cast but dunno what others were in, and i think Jennifer Barnhart is still performing in avenue q on broadway. None of them are tagged, and this is the same for musical theatre actors who have performed in other shows too, and some have really good articles. Since the project covers some very minor musicals that have tiny articles should we try to add ALL notable (notable enough to have a wikipedia page) to the project? Mark E 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If an actor or singer performs primarily in musical theatre, they should certainly be tagged for this project. Also musical theatre producers, composers, lyricists and librettists. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What about a David Hyde Pierce or a Neil Patrick Harris? Definitely well known in the MT community, but known to the world at large as TV actors.... — Music Maker 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional :) How many tags can the poor article support: Film project, Bio project, etc., etc. I'd say that if the person is really a TV or film star just dabbling in MT, like Joey Lawrence, then no. But both Hyde Pierce and NPH have spent a lot of time on stage in the past few years, so sure, tag 'em if you want. And people whose fame is tied to their MT work, like Bernadette Peters, *definitely*. -- Ssilvers 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox change

Hey kids -- Having worked with this infobox more or less nonstop for the past week or two, I think there's something we should change. There's no way to make the Drama Desk awards fit on their own line, and it's been bothering me. I could just change the name of the award from "outstanding" to "best", but, frankly, I can't bring myself to do it. I've been piping "Drama Desk Award" to simply "Drama Desk", but the award for Outstanding New Musical (even when "New" is left out) still takes up two lines. I was thinking that if we put the word "Awards" centered on its own line, and allowed the awards to center as well beneath it, those award names would fit and it would still look okay. I'll try to work on a mock-up when I'm less half-asleep (or more half-awake for you optimists out there....). If anyone has any other ideas (like fiddling with the current code), I'm certainly open to them. — Music Maker 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about just "Musical" or "New Musical". The award must mean "best" or "outstanding" musical. You certainly don't need the word Award - it's already there as a heading. Plus, lower down in the article we have more room to use the exact names of the awards. Or, we could make the box a little wider.... Just some ideas. -- Ssilvers 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure it's a standard size. I don't think we should make it too radically different from the other boxes out there. Just using "Drama Desk Musical"? Hmmm.... — Music Maker 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what, "Drama Desk Outstanding Musical" seems to fit. — Music Maker 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Smell of Success possible copyvio

If anyone has a recording of Sweet Smell of Success (musical), could you go over to that article and see if the synopsis is lifted directly from the liner notes? It seems a little spurious.... — Music Maker 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have them, but the synopsis is bloated anyhow. May as well rewrite it in any case. I you edit it while looking at a different summary from MTI or somewhere, you'll end up with something original no matter what. -- Ssilvers 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Actors, composers, librettists, lyricists, directors, etc.

If you're looking for untagged musical theatre actors, Category:American musical theatre actors is a great place to start. Crystallina 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, all the subcategories under Category:Musical theatre have links to a zillion untagged articles. -- Ssilvers 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to say if you tag an article with the template PLEASE also rate it, the assessment page keeps getting more articles appearing.Mark E 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the project expand as far as notable showtunes, such as Defying Gravity (song) and My Favorite Things (song)?Mark E 11:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, however, chances are any article about a song in a musical is not notable. There guidelines are being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Notability (music) but from the looks of the current AfD for Dear Old Shiz, unless a song is truly notable, it should simply be redirected to the musical page. --omtay 38 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few songs in musicals could be notable. If major recording artists often perform the song, it's notable - things like Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Send in the Clowns, etc. If it gets a lot of press for some aspect, it's notable. Crystallina 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the current guidelines at WP:MUSIC state that "if a song has a life outside the musical", then it is notable. So, yeah, Rainbow, Clowns, definitely. Gravity, not-so-much. (At least, not yet.) Which means that all of the songs created at Rent have to go, all of the ones at Phantom have to go, and the ridiculous notion that every Sherman Brothers song ever written deserves an article needs to be nipped in the bud. Maybe I'll do that today.... — Music Maker 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm id say delete all the "Wicked" songs apart from DG as that song is evidently well know in music theatre. Id say the same for phantom keeping Music of the night, and for rent, all but Seasons of Love.Mark E 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Well-known in musical theatre" is quite different from "having a life outside of the show". "Music of the Night" is just this side of having a life outside of the show, and "Seasons of Love".... Meh.... I mean, it was recorded by Stevie Wonder... for the cast recording. Something like "One Night in Bangkok" had a life outside the show. "Let the Sunshine In". "Somewhere". These have had a life outside the show. (And I'm not even sure that any of them have articles....) — Music Maker 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do redirect song titles to the show (I don't know if that's a good idea), make sure they are not bluelinked in the songlist. -- Ssilvers 18:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think redirects are a bad idea? If someone searches for the song, they'll be brought to the page for the musical. It'll cut down on people making articles for the songs that shouldn't have them. Just last year, we AfD'd all of the songs in Phantom, they were deleted, and they're being recreated again. — Music Maker 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were a bad I idea. I said I didn't know. My main point, is that if you do redirect song titles to the show, make sure they are not bluelinked in the songlist. -- Ssilvers 20:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Well, yeah.... — Music Maker 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)