Talk:List of the longest-running Broadway shows

Run count?[edit]

How exactly is the run count being figured? Is it the total number of performances to take place on Broadway between all productions of the show, the number of performances for the original Broadway production, the number of performances for the longest running production, etc.? I was just slightly confused by the way the numbers are being figured, so I thought it might help if we could clarify things a bit. —Mears man (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it should be the total number of runs 'till today, but it looks like it's quite a bit off sometimes. The King and I for instance had, after the article, 1246+695+191+780=2912 runs, whereas the article only shows the 1246 for the original showing. For other shows, it matches quite exactly the amount in the article. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I filled in most of the chart myself using this as a source, but because I wasn't sure how we were doing it I just went with the longest run of the show, whether it be the original production or a revival (I indicated if it was a revival in the chart), and I filled in any information I could find about other productions in the comments section. If you feel this chart should account for all the showing between every production of the show on Broadway I wouldn't object to that, although it probably would take quite a bit of time to get through all 100 of them. —MearsMan ^talk 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably fine like that, since it's also much easier to get the sources for that listing. (IBDB provides it via Advanced search almost immediatelly). However, I've already done most of the work to get the overall numbers while translating the article to german. See de:Liste der 100 am häufigsten am Broadway gezeigten Darbietungen for the numbers. The order of some of the shows differ quite much from this list, though. I haven't completed everything yet, since it's quite a bit of work (as you said) and there could as well be an AfD request coming up soon. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt that there would be an AfD, or at least a successful one, as this used to be a category and the CFD discussion was overwhelming in favor of listifying. Ma^t_chups 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I maybe made myself not clear enough: I talked about an AfD request on de:WP, not here. Those are much more common, and there are a lot more reasons for deletion than here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'm sure anyone reading this already knows these sources, and I admit that these sources are pretty obvious, but just for the record:

Internet Broadway Database [1]--search for the individual show;
Info Please [2]-- has a listing, as of 9/2007 (as of now).

I'll look around for other sources, but not until next week. JeanColumbia (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When adding/changing references to idbdb.com, use {{ibdb title|####|Title}} (See Template:ibdb title for details). This will make the reference list easier to read and editing the article easier also. _{Guy M | Talk} 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add an accessdate to those references? This is time sensitive information so knowing when the reference was last accessed will help when any kind of updates would be needed. I suggest "{{ibdb title|####|Title}}. Accessed on Month Day, Year." BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the template doesn't have that ability coded into it. But since the majority of shows are closed, there would be no reason, and those that are still open are covered within the introduction paragraph. _{Guy M | Talk} 18:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bovineboy was suggesting that the accessdate be added in plain text after the template, so that it would appear something like this:

The Phantom of the Opera at the Internet Broadway Database. Last accessed on August 20, 2009.

Chicago at the Internet Broadway Database. Last accessed on January 3, 2005.

This format would allow the readers and the editors to get an idea as to how "up to date" the run counts are for each particular show. In the previous example it would be clear that Phantom is likely to be accurate, while Chicago is probably a bit dated. While I agree that this shouldn't be an issue for the productions that have already closed, it could help improve the accuracy of the information on currently running shows. We're no long claiming "this is the run count as of now" but rather "this is what the run count was as of this date." Does this seem like a citation structure that might work? —MearsMan ^talk 19:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>Great idea! I've been thinking for a while now that the ref list needed something more than "[1], [2], etc." but wasn't sure what the best solution would be. Life has kept me too busy to devote much time to Wikipedia these days... If I have time later I'll try to go through and help with some of the references, though. —MearsMan ^talk 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bovineboy — I think that's a good suggestion as well, and it shouldn't be too difficult to impliment. —MearsMan ^talk 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to this article[edit]

If you haven't noticed, I've been attempting to place links to this article in the articles for the 100 shows listed here. So far, there are links in the articles for shows #1 through #17 with the exception of The Lion King (musical). I also noticed that somebody else placed a link to this article in the one for Avenue Q (that was actually what inspired me to start working on this). I'm going to keep working on it, but it's obviously a time consuming task, so any help would be greatly appreciated. —MearsMan ^talk 15:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably be pretty easy to do with AWB. I'll give it a run tonite. (Maybe....) — Music Maker 5376 15:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, hopefully it'll work! Feel free to undo what I've done in the articles I've attempted to work with if you see fit... I'll admit that the way I included the link in a few of them was a bit of a stretch. —MearsMan ^talk 15:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed :-D. Actually, I'm thinking that the best bet would be to include it in the "See also" section. That way, it's linked (without bluifing an entire clause in a sentence) and one can see that it's on the list. — Music Maker 5376 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of run, et alii[edit]

There should probably be a column in the table for the dates of the various runs. That will enable disambiguation between various revivals. If a revival is noted in the "Notes", it should have a year for reference. Also, perhaps instead of notating "Musical" in the "Notes" column, we can have a column with just an M in it to denote a musical (with a note, of course, that that's what it does). Also (last one I swear), the few without articles can link to their relevant pages at ibdb (or, of course, we can redlink them and get some stubs up...). — Music Maker 5376 15:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent suggestions! I'm still not entirely sure what the "M" column would look like, and it might take a bit to find the opening/closing dates for all of the productions, but it's definitely something that I feel would improve the article. I remember a while back I started to redlink a few of the article-less shows, but I think I ran into a few that already had an existing (unrelated) article by the same name, and not knowing whether the show was a play or a musical I decided to leave things as they were. I'll try to look into it again though, and I think your ibdb suggestion would work too. —MearsMan ^talk 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening/closing dates should all be at ibdb -- and they should be in their relevant articles. Ibdb also notes whether or not they're musicals. — Music Maker 5376 15:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions as to whether the opening/closing should be listed before or after the run count? Also, do you think opeing and closing dates should be in seperate columns or the same column? Also, any suggestions on what the name of the "M" column should be? Sorry for all the questions, I'd just hate to start working on it just to go back and have to change everything around when the problem could have been avoided. —MearsMan ^talk 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol -- didn't see this before I did it! I just left the M column blank and put a note in the intro. That keeps it thin. I also put the ranking in its own column just in case people want to sort it in alphabetical order. We could put the opening and closing dates in different columns. We should probably figure out a way to make that sortable, too. — Music Maker 5376 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonys[edit]

Also, there are a few that note how many Tonys the production earned -- I think we should either do that for all of them or none of them. — Music Maker 5376 15:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Refactored by Matchups[reply]

I think all; when I created the article, I put this information whenever I noticed it, but did not attempt to research it for all shows. Ma^t_chups 03:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should probably leave it out. If people really want to know, they'll know where to find it. — Music Maker 5376 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it would be best to leave the Tonys out of this article. —MearsMan ^talk 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeats[edit]

Guys and Dolls and Annie Get Your Gun are on the list twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.109.71 (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because those shows have been produced multiple times and each of those productions has run over a thousand performances. This list is one of productions, as is the industry standard. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

This is a fantastic list. One minor quibble is that "Revival" is listed for several shows still in previews. Shouldn't this only be entered for shows that have had actual "Opening nights" or is the information updated once they begin previews? JohnAKeith (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of previews seems to be a good place to list them. Rare for something to not open once it hits previews. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEMPHIS Show-Count Accuracy[edit]

Memphis has 1,166 performances, not 1,165. Therefore Memphis is really the 83th longest-running Broadway show and Cabaret is the 84th, and so on. This also bumps the 1999 revival of Annie Get Your Gun out of the Top 100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.116.243 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both IBDB and Broadway World list 1,165. What's your source for 1,166? 173.166.144.1 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100? Everything with 1000+?[edit]

I note that the list was updated in October 2012 to include some productions outside the "top 100", but with 1000+ performances. I do not know if the list of additional productions is exhaustive. If it is, perhaps the text before the table should state that it is a list of all productions with 1000+ performances, and drop the extra line in the table between productions #100 and #101? If the additional productions is not exhaustive, perhaps the numbers for these additional plays (#101, #102, #103, etc.) should be dropped, as they would not necessarily represent their proper rank? If there are, indeed, only a handful of 1000+ outside the top 100, I hope the more expert/regular editors of this page would choose to make the overall criteria "all 1000+" rather than "Top 100". Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Jmg38. The additional productions may not be exhaustive. Feel free to take out all shows listed below #100, as information may be falsified by placing in the word all, as it counters a show's (Beatlemania) non-verified total number of performances, which at present is not listed here. That show's total number of regular performances happens to be either 920 or 1,006, which has not yet been verified at this time. By leaving the list alone, no changes are necessary. Best, --Discographer (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rather than take out the interesting data on the few shows beyond #100, I've made minor alteration to the text, to say "Some" other shows have 1000+, "including the following", and replaced the rank number with "--" for these extra shows. --Jmg38 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I revamped this page a few years ago, back when the top 100 had shows with less than 1,000 performances. So theoretically, this list is an exhaustive list of all shows with 1000+ performances. 68.80.125.154 (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you now Jmg38, on above discussion, as this list became exhaustive with Beatlemania on June 22, 2015 when its total was verified. Changing opening sentence to reflect the change as mentioned above, numbering shows 101–116, and eliminating hidden note. If anyone is against this, we can discuss it here on this talk page. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Broadway shows that have held title of longest-running show[edit]

I have created a new article titled List of Broadway shows that have held title of longest-running show intended to capture the list of shows that have held the title of longest-running show of all time. Obviously the current "longest running list" of shows here excludes the older record holders at this point. I have started with The Black Crook in 1866, until we can find anything prior that is documented. I know one production of Uncle Tom's Cabin is said to have run for 325 performances in the 1850s.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of the longest-running Broadway shows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402061014/http://world-theatres.com/longruns.html to http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for longer lists?[edit]

Is there any comprehensive source for plays that have less than 1,000 performances, i.e., a listing by # of performances? I was digging around a bit to find plays with long runs with no Wikipedia article as of yet, such as Any Wednesday (play) (983 perf. in 1964-66; Sandy Dennis won Tony for best actress), and The Man Who Came Back (play) (457 perf., 1916-17), so I bet that's just the tip of an iceberg.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be against Wikipedia standards to create Any Wednesday (play), since the play is already at its correct article location, that being Any Wednesday. An article for the film could always be created, Any Wednesday (film), since it is currently in the wrong article space anyway, the one that can only be intended for the play. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Becasue there have been no responses on over three and a half weeks I will close this as a non-controversial move . Found5dollar (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging List of Broadway shows that have held the title of longest-running show into List of the longest-running Broadway shows. These two article are both describing one concept, the longest running productions in Broadway history. There is a large overlap between the two articles as they are literally describing the same items just in different ways. I see this much like how the "tallest buildings in X city" articles are written. We should list all of the items by number of performances in one table, then list in a second table the productions that have help the title chronologically. Having two separate articles makes the information more difficult for readers to find, so I propose we move it all to one page. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Found5dollar, I see you went ahead with the merge in June. I created List of Broadway shows that have held the title of longest-running show and though I have no ownership over it, let me note that the benefit of that article is that it shows ONLY those plays that have had the title of longest running play, in chronological progression. Nothing of its kind compiling this information existed before. History of the world's tallest buildings does something similar to that. Thus, if one wanted to know what the longest run play had ever been in the year 1900, one could easily tell it was A Trip to Chinatown. You can't readily learn the chronological progression from this article. I think the modern Broadway format of almost perpetual runs drowns out the history from whence it spawned. Let me know what you think. Cheers, --Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, thank you for compiling all of this information and it 100% belongs on Wikipedia. I retained all of the information and exact language you used in the previous article here so nothing was lost. Moving the information all to this page moves it closer to wiki standards for lists of this sort. Listing the full rundown of items followed by a timeline is common practice; see: List of tallest buildings in the United States, List of highest-grossing films, List of English monarchs, etc). The page you are referencing, History of the world's tallest buildings, doesn't really line up with the list of Broadway shows as the list of productions is finite and only began in the late 18th century. The building page has to cover defining what is a building, where to start counting from, and multiple ways to rank that the main article,List of tallest buildings and structures does not have room for. All of the Broadway info can neatly fit on one page in two tables. It makes it more difficult for visitors to find the Broadway info they are looking for if it is split into multiple pages.Found5dollar (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Found5dollar, my apologies. I acted too hastily and didn't see that you created two tables, that's completely logical, for some reason I thought they were merged together. Thanks for your work!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]