Talk:Wicked (musical)/Archive 1

Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz

There is a new WikiProject about Oz and Wicked: WikiProject Oz. I hope to create a community to help guide the continued development of the articles about the series and its authors, characters, etc. toward even more quality articles. If you are interested, please add your name under the "Participants section" and please leave any comments or questions on the project's talk page or my user talk page. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Movie Version

I recall hearing somewhere that Miramax has the rights to a movie version of Wicked. I don't believe anything official has been announced yet, though. Should this speculative information be posted?

No, wait until you have confirmation that this is a fact. --Tati 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Wikichik

Sorry, not really relating to the article, but God, I hope they make a movie version of this. It would literally be "wicked". :)

If anyone noes if there is a movie version please post it would be very helpful

Alright, I've confirmed that Universal Pictures currently holds the rights to a Wicked movie. However, my source cannot be cited at the time being. I'm going to do some research to see if I can find a good source for this information--until then, I think we should keep it out of the Wiki.

I think a movie version would sort of ruin the the show...

/\/\/\ I dont see how it would ruin the show, sooo many shows i've wanted to see again, but are no longer running, or cannot get to london.

P.s Movies dont usally use the same music as the shows, so it wouldnt be the same :-(

Four words...Phantom of the Opera...I think a movie would be awesome

One more word: Chicago. Same numbers in the same order, only cutting out the number "Class". They use the same music. -Anonny.-------------------------------------------

Chicago may well have most of the same numbers in the same order, but several other aspects are horribly softened to make the characters 'nicer'. Commercially successful, it certainly was, but I wouldn't hold it up as an artistically successful adaptation. Lovingboth 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Length

Does anyone else think the plot summary is way too long? It doesn't need to include every single detail of the show; it just needs to summarize the plot. Chris 18:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. 168.39.166.145 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the article is becoming too overloaded with information in general (despite the fact that I'm sure much of this information has been contributed by me). For example, do we really need a list of EVERY cast for every production there's been, both original and current? I don't think things like that are all that necessary for this article, unless someone wants to create Wicked (musical)/additional productions (or something to that effect). Alex 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the plot summary may be a copyright violation. It was added in one chunk by the user with IP 68.144.242.205, who also added a similar synopsis to Aida (musical). The latter was a verbatim copy from [1], but I wasn't able to find a source for this plot summary. Still, someone should look into it. --ArthurDenture 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: The synopsis appears to be copied from [2].

I totally agree that it is to long. It says may be "SOME plot spoilers" but it seems like they give an entire look at the play. The only thing not there is the lyrics and sheet music to the songs.

I agree, someone needs to change this. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic description of the play, not the sparknotes for it. --Ringwraith10 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is too long, and should be slimmed down. However, I disagree that "spoilers" should be removed. This is an encyclopedia, not a teaser for the show. It should summarize all the important parts of the plot. The spoiler tags are there to let anyone know that if they don't want to know how it ends, they should not read this section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Which Way is the Party" vs. "Dancing Through Life"

Several people have edited section 8.2 (Pre-Broadway Run/Musical Numbers) to change the song "Which Way is the Party" to "Dancing Through Life." I just want to make sure that everyone is aware that in the previews in San Francisco, Fiyero had a different song, called "Which Way is the Party." The song between Nessarose and Boq was called "We Deserve Each Other." The former was scrapped and replaced by "Dancing Through Life," but that wasn't until the show reached Broadway, so the previous version of the San Fracisco list is actually correct and does not need to be edited. Apster 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Unreferenced flag

I removed what appeared to be an old unref tag on the article that said it doesn't cite its references or sources. The current version of the article has a bunch of reference links at the end, so clearly it does not completely lack verifiable references.

If there's still a specific statement within the article that requires further citation, then mark that part with the {{citation needed}} tag. But at this point there's no need for a general label saying the entire article is uncited. Dugwiki 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Broadway Cast

There has recently been massive amounts of edit traffic in the cast sections. Much of it is anonymous or by users without edit history, and it is hard to tell what is legitimate and what is vandalism. My most recent revert (August 3 2006) is because the changes appeared to contradict the official page; if someone has better information, please include an appropriate citation when making changes. --ArthurDenture 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Last lines of the show

I removed the last lines of the show from the summary of Act II; they seemed irrelevant and they were needlessly bolded and italicized.

- What's with the jibberish in Act 3? could someone take care of that... please!!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.246.250 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Casting rumors

There have been several edits lately involving the replacement information for different casts, with news on casting that has not been officially announced. A little bit of it is clearly vandalism but in most cases it turns out to be speculation (common among the Wicked fanbase) being misinterpreted as fact. While some of these rumors do in fact turn out to be true, I think it should be a guideline that until it's coming from a source that can be properly cited (as in something more than "I heard it from so-and-so"), it's still a rumor, and for the sake of the article's integrity, should not be added. On top of that, the article is becoming quite cluttered with excessive casting information, and to have the rumors on top of it would just make it a mess. JMHO. Alex 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Length - Remove casting information

This article is clearly too long. I don't think that we need all the casting information - it dosn't really contribute to the article and wikipedia is the not the place for it. If you really think we should keep the info, lets move it to more pages like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flutefluteflute/Wicked_Production:_Broadway --Flutefluteflute 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this information is important, but I don't think it needs to stay all on one page. This is the page I check for casting updates on WICKED, so I would like to be able to find it on some Wikipedia page. What if we gave a page to each production and an "overall" page for the synopsis and song numbers and such? Yankee fan907 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)yankee_fan907

I agree that the information on this page is important, but it is WAY too long. I like the idea of splitting the article into subpages. Anyone feel up to the task? --Conor 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wicked (musical) cast lists. Otto4711 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan Site

It's my understanding that we don't typically link to fan sites per the external links guidelines, and have reverted accordingly. If (a) that's incorrect or (b) the person who keeps adding one thinks there's a reason to make an exception in this case - this is the place to talk about it. --TheOtherBob 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To the IP user who keeps adding the link to a fansite, and recently requested that whoever removed it place an explanation in the fansite's guestbook: sorry, but your fansite is not the place to discuss whether something belongs in Wikipedia. If you want further explanation beyond the above, post here. That's what this page is for. There are a lot of friendly people here, and we're glad to talk about it. --TheOtherBob 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I'm the person who added the fansite. Sorry about all of this I don't know why it be deleted because it is relevent, provides information and... I don't think there is a good reason to delete it.

Have you read the links in my message in the section below? -- Mwanner | Talk 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to communicate with the fan-site adder

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, and links to web sites with which you are affiliated. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. In particular, see the section on conflicts_of_interest. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have and though I do own the site it says that it is not recommended. My site is relevent and useful so I can't see why it shouldn't be on here.

Well, but the point of the conflict of interest policy is that it's not up to the site's owner to decide whether it is relevant and useful-- site owners naturally tend to be biased. If your site is as wonderful as you believe it is, someone will get around to adding it. Meanwhile, why not work on improving the contents of the Wikipedia article? Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well for anyone to add it they'd need to see it first...why don't you look and see if it is?

I have, and I don't see any reason to not follow Wikipedia's normal procedure here. I'm glad you're proud of your site - it's a nice site. But it's no different than any of the other fan sites that are routinely excluded. --TheOtherBob 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well tell me why...it follows all the rules of the links I've checked.

Hmm. Well, how do you think it follows the rules of the links that Mwanner provided? It seems to me not to do so - it seems to violate WP:EL (because it's a fansite) and WP:COI (because the author of the website is the one trying to add it). Also, one quick thing - please "sign" your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ (It may also make sense to create a log-in name, so that we can tell who is talking.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see why it's not appropriate...it's true that those two rules are violated but it says that exeptions are made.~Webmiss @ Western Sky

Yes - but rarely, particularly when dealing with a conflict of interest like this. (You are, after all, the webmistress of the fansite you want to add. Please forgive me for saying so, but it seems to me that adding this would benefit your website far more than it would benefit Wikipedia.) You want us to take an extraordinary step here by ignoring two pretty important rules. You would need to identify a really good reason that we should do that; forgive me for saying so, but I don't think you've done so. --TheOtherBob 21:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well why are you so intent on stopping me??

Stopping you from breaking the rules? See all of the above. See the external links policy, the conflict of interest policy, the policy saying that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website, the policy saying that your fansite has to be notable, etc. (And your fansite is not notable - you said so yourself above). Look, you asked for an explanation for why we wouldn't let you add a spam link to your fansite. You got as complete of one as you could possibly want - far more than Wikipedians typically give this sort of thing. Unless you have some good reason why we should make an exception here, or unless anyone else disagrees, I think that's all I have to say on this. --TheOtherBob 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever say my site isn't notable. And I'm going to find people ... 4174 have been to my site so I'm sure at least one thinks it deserves to be here...who think so too.

See Wikipedia:notability (web), which lays out notability guidelines for websites. A page visited only 4174 times is not even remotely notable (nor is a site that people will only be able to find if you link to it here, which is what you said above). Look, what you seem to be saying is that you're planning to recruit others from outside Wikipedia to come and add a spam link to your site. Please don't - it breaks this rule and is the sort of thing that could result in a block of your account. Please help us build the encyclopedia, but also please have the decency to respect Wikipedia and its rules. --TheOtherBob 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The London Production

In the London Production section...it states that only "Elphaba" and "The Wizard" had American accents, but I checked with videos and plus researched on Nigel Planner (the wizard) and he seems to actually have a British accent. Was this a mistake? Small5th 05:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, This is correct. Nigel Planner performs with an American accent. The rest of the cast have British accents --Icedblue11 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, London theatres do not generally publish their weekly box office takings, so any claims to be the highest grossing production cannot be verified. (One magazine tried to publish a Playbill-alike list, but was quickly forced to stop.) Unless anyone can point me to more than the show's 'we're the best' press releases for the claims, I'll remove them. Lovingboth 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha, someone else is of the same opinion: http://www.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2006/10/spinning_the_grosses_and_spinning_t.php Claim removed. As no-one publishes audited figures in London, this claim can never be more than PR puffery. Lovingboth 09:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

LovingBoth, I think you're absolutely right - I remember Mary Poppins last year claiming to have broken box office records, but have never seen any real figures... I've added a reference to a recent press release about audience figures and gross, with the caveat that it is the producers' own figures. Small5th - the Wizard in the original novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was from Omaha, in the USA, so really should speak with a US accent, which is why Planer, a proper British actor with a proper British accent, plays him as American. Dafyd 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I'm avoiding mentioning the main problem with the production: the book is an 'A', the set 'B', the lyrics 'C', the music 'D' and the sound engineering at the current production an 'E'. It's a huge pity the music/sound don't come anywhere near the quality of the book. Lovingboth 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Script?

I looked at the page earlier today and just a few minutes ago, and couldn't help but notice that someone had added the script to Wicked. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, but it seems like a copyright violation. Does it need to be removed? 63.239.240.1 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Musical numbers

There are two lists of musical numbers. We shouldn't repeat the list. The description of the various production should just describe which songs were different from the main list. -- Ssilvers 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I have moved the awards the show recieved to a new page as I felt they didn't really belong here.-- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the cities the US tour is visiting and put the different locations under one heading.-- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot outline is way too long. I feel that the whole section should be deleted, since a small summary of the plot is just as effective. Any thoughts? --Conor 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong. This isn't supposed to be like an advertisement not giving away the plot's details. It's an encyclopedia entry and it should include all things WICKED. Yankee fan907 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. 1. It is 'way too long; and 2. It shouldn't just be a paragraph. The film project suggests a maximum length for plot summaries of 900 words. This one is several times that long. So, if anyone is very familiar with the script (or has a copy on their lap) and can keep the most important plot points, will whittling down the less important plot points, I think it would greatly improve the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is way too long and could be shortened. I also wonder if it is necessary to have a "plot details" section and a detailed plot summary...they could be combined and weeded out. THanks-Broadwaygal 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Save the Images, Please!

If there is anyone reading this page who is good at writing "fair use" rationales, for images, there are a number of images in danger of being deleted, including Wizard of Oz images. Please see the warnings at User talk:SFTVLGUY2. Can anyone save them? I'm a bit technologically challenged. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think fair use applies in these cases. It's not like using a CD cover as an illustration, the photos themselves are copyrighted. —  MusicMaker 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Major edits

I've just done some copyediting. I got rid of one of the lists of musical numbers, we only need one here, and I put that one in columns, so it doesn't take up as much space. I moved some of the box office information out of the lead paragraph (it doesn't really belong there), and separated some things into a history section. I've done some work on cutting down the synopsis of Act I, and am about to get started on Act II. —  MusicMaker 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I cut down Act II, too, but it's still too long.... —  MusicMaker 08:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start. I agree that it's still too long. Let me know when you're done, and I'll see if I can help. -- Ssilvers 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Synopsis section should just have the plot and nothing else. Meta-analysis of the story goes in the intro and/or history sections. I move the info into the introduction, since it was all important information that I think goes there, although some of it could go into a background section. -- Ssilvers 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image captions

Please cut down the image captions. They contain POV and captioncruft. -- Ssilvers 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as the fair use of the images, the images say that they are "promotional" images. Weren't they released by Disney with permission for anyone to use them? If we don't provide some explanation soon, they'll all go bye-bye. A shame! -- Ssilvers 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, definitely not by Disney ;-) - but yes, I think they have been released in press kits and so on. I'm not sure about the reuse provisions on them, though... - Dafyd 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not Disney, Universal, but I would be surprised if these were ACTUALLY released in a press kit. I'm more inclined to think that they were appropriated from various places off the internet. I can write fair-use rationales, but I'm not going to in this case. I really don't think they qualify as fair-use. —  MusicMaker 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare and Contrast the book?

I've seen other articles in Wikipedia incorporate a section for comparing and contrasting plot details between the plot of one media and the media it was based upon. I think it is worthy to note that Fiyero never reappears as the scarecrow, Elphaba dies, Nessa was armless and not wheel-chair bound, Doctor Dillamond was murdered, etc. etc.

I Deffinately think this is a good idea since there are such large differences, although I must note that the wikipedia page on the novel only mentions the stage musical in passing.Mark E 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

References to the musical

I'd like to see a sub-section detailing the references within Wicked the musical to the 1939 film. Is anyone interested in starting work on this? I'd be interested in contributing too. Ackgan 09:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Making Good

Can we have a reference to Schwartz earlier attempts to write Elphaba's character song? MMetro 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Movie, Part II

I've removed an unsourced section from the front page (yet again) that talks about a movie version, set for 2009, starring Anne Hathaway and Mandy Moore. I have never seen any concrete confirmation of this, nor any reports in "authoritative" publications (Playbill, for example), so until there are some hard facts to report, let's leave this out. In fact, the only proper article about a Wicked movie I could find quoted Schwartz saying "But at this point it's still kind of early in the game for us. We're just starting to launch some of the foreign productions and it remains to be seen the extent to which this will translate outside of he United States. We're going to learn that over next couple of years." [3]

See also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

- Dafyd 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Additional Explanation

• On the MoS fail: The article's "synopsis" section is far, far too long. A synopsis is a "brief summary or outline of the plot" not a complete reiteration of every plot point. Also, per the guidelines of WP:LEAD, the introductory section is too short in relation to the article's length. An adequate lead is a concise overview of the entire article.
• On the verification fail: 90% of Other productions is without sufficient inline citations, and other sections suffer as well. The bare minimum of sourcing is a cite at the end of each paragraph and for direct quotations. There is also {{fact}} tag present in the article. The formatting of most of the references cited is also completely inappropriate. A simple url is not enough information to verify that information is attributed to a reliable source. Title, publication, author and retrieval date information is all desirable. You are never required to use them, but taking a look at some applicable citation templates might give you a good idea of the basic information desired in references.

Overall, a hold period is to provide for minor changes to what is already basically a good article. This article requires a major amount of rewriting and sourcing to achieve GA status, so it is my imperative to fail it. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I failed to make the one exception to my comment on citations above clear. According to WP:LEAD, and good common sense, introductions don't really need inline citations. This is because they speak in generalities, and any potentially controversial facts are usually cited further within the body of the article. If it's just an overview of content that is well-cited elsewhere, it doesn't need additional cites. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion, VanTucky ^Talk 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding citations

To those of you adding citations, first let me say good work. This article is looking much better cited.
Let me point out, however, that one of the main problems with the GA failure was the fact that things aren't being cited properly. It's not enough to simply place a url between two ref tags. Please read Template:Cite web/doc to see how to properly cite things. They should take the form {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |format= |work= }}, at the very least.

• url: URL of online item.
• title: Title of online item
• accessdate: Full date when item was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, for example "accessdate = 2007-11-08". Must not be wikilinked
• format: Format, e.g. PDF. HTML implied if not specified.
• work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, name of that work.
  

Doing it as you place the citation will save much work in the future. Thanks. —  MusicMaker5376 21:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I know how to use cite templates and fully intend to ensure they're implemented. I also recognise and employ Henry Ford's preferred method of production: assembly line and division of labour. In more general terms, you'll note that I go through phases: for a time I'll just work on throwing references into the article as quickly as possible while still ensuring quality. Then I'll take a break, grab a cup of tea, and come back and format all the refs I just added en masse. I find this method much more efficient than the method you espouse, for articles where large numbers of refs must be added (such as this one). In this case User:Dafyd has beaten me to it on most of the formatting issues. All the references I've added will be formatted in time, but right now my priority one is in replacing all the {{fact}} tags with something inside ref tags. Of course any assistance you can give would be warmly welcomed, particularly on the tag after "More recent reviews, of the productions all over the world, have praised the show for its ability to resonate with a number of demographics with its central themes regarding women, camaraderie, and societal standards", which is proving to be a particular pig. Happy‑melon 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the sentence is really giving you trouble, get rid of it. I don't think anyone will think that the show is any less... popular... without that line. Conversely, it doesn't really say anything that the rest of the article doesn't already make clear. —  MusicMaker5376 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List of images

In order that we not lose any images that are temporarily removed from the article, here is a list:

• [[:Image:04c.jpg|thumb|left|220px|Glinda (Kristin Chenoweth) in the original Broadway company]]
• [[:Image:Picture22-med.jpg|thumb|right|220px|Elphaba (Kerry Ellis) & Glinda (Dianne Pilkington) in the London company]]
• [[:Image:Stephdg2005otc.jpg|thumb|left|220px|Elphaba (Stephanie J. Block) singing "Defying Gravity"; original national touring company]]
• [[:Image:Wicked2006newcast27.jpg|thumb|left|220px|Elphaba (Eden Espinosa) and Nessarose (Jenna Leigh Green); Broadway company]]
• [[:Image:BroadwayJoeMacandIdinaALAYm.jpg‎ |left|thumb|Joey McIntyre as Fiyero and Idina Menzel as Elphaba; Broadway Company]]
• [[:Image:Kate & Ana.jpg|thumb|220px|Glinda (Kate Reinders) and Elphaba (Ana Gasteyer) part; original Chicago company]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions re: article improvement

I don't think the first sentence should say "Tony-award winning". The Tony awards are discussed in the third paragraph. The opening sentence should also not discuss the producer. It should only discuss the show, creators and basis material. The original production information should go in the third paragraph all together. Remember, the show will have many productions, so the first paragraph should discuss the show as a work of drama, and then the production notability info can follow in the LEAD. Also, I don't think the "Other Productions" section should be broken down with === headings. Just bolded with ";" at the beginning of the line. That will make the TOC more manageable. I'll fix that now. -- Ssilvers 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Universal is the producer everywhere, not just Bway. I think it can stay. —  MusicMaker5376 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is still a lot of unencyclopedic language throughout this article. See, for example, the role descriptions. I'm afraid that if I were the GA reviewer, I could not pass this article. "Extremely popular" and "huge success" occur in successive sentences in the LEAD. "Wicked has broken box office records all around the world" is simply not true, since it has not played "all around the world." Hyperbole, including words like "massive", appear throughout the article. The musical analysis section should not be near the top of the article above the synopsis in the "development" secton, but should be much later. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure guidelines for a suggested order of the sections. I think the "other productions section" should go higher up, or at least the description of the tryout, the 2005 productions and the West End production. The prose is stilted or ambiguous in many places. For example: "The West End production opened to broadly similar, if slightly more upbeat, critical reception to its American counterpart." If I understand this, it means: "The West End run opened to slightly more upbeat reviews than the Broadway production received." Anyhow, in order to improve this article, the editors need to pretend that they are not "fans" of the show and try to write more formally. There is much work to do here, but the article has improved considerably. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am copyediting the article as I write this, and I have moved the musical analysis section. I disagree with all your other comments. The "other productions" section is large and cumbersome and would disrupt the flow of prose above. Breaking it up serves no purpose that I can see. With knowledge of the parenthetical comma, I consider that sentence to be precisely the tone and structure that an encyclopaedia should strive for. Of course this will reach the LOCE before it gets to FA, so fortunately the prose need only be "clear" and the grammar "correct" for the time being. Happy‑melon 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two other items: The punctuation should go before the ref tags throughout, never after the ref. Also, the development section says that the show is different from the novel, hinting that it has something to do with the relationship between the witches, but there should be at least a paragraph discussing the specific respects in which the show's libretto differs from the novel. -- Ssilvers 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Passed "good article" nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Closing comments: I can see you really took my suggestions to heart. In actuality, you've gone above and beyond GA standards of referencing. The synopsis is now of perfect length as well. I assume your next step is moving towards FA, let me know when you nominate so I can support! Thank you for your hard work, VanTucky ^Talk 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Important

Why was Toronto struck out already when it says performances until December 31st? Should this be fixed?

Actually the theatrical production previewed in San Francisco (while it was fine-tuned and when the "Wizard" actor was replaced. That should be in the history of "Wicked". Bay Area folks saw it first! 76.102.120.185 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, the entire musical except the begining is supposed to be Glinda's telling of the story, right?

So, she isn't exactly claearing Elphaba's name. . . but instead telinjg the story and leaving it to the Ozians to decide for themselves, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uses Wikipedia Alot (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Development

The {{TOCleft}} tag is forcing the word "Development" in the heading to shift slightly to the right. I have the TOCs shut off when I view WP, so I'm not sure, but isn't that tag unnecessary? Isn't that where the TOC would be, anyway? —  MusicMaker5376 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The ToC would otherwise float, forcing the "Development" section to begin underneath the bottom of the ToC, displaying a large amount of ugly whitespace on high-resolution browsers. Happy‑melon 09:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the white space looks tidier than the cluttered look of forcing the TOC left. More importantly, I don't think that FA articles on Wikipedia (most of which have long TOCs) force the TOC left, so it does not appear to be the consensus way to do it on Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The whitespace was being caused by the image. Since the image was the first line in the paragraph and it was being forced on the right, it put the image after the infobox and put all of the text under that. I think I fixed it. —  MusicMaker5376 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Language issue

I've had issue with this line for awhile: "Schwartz further obscured the motif's origins by transposing it into a minor key...." Strictly speaking, changing a melody from a major mode to a minor mode isn't a transposition -- a transposition occurs when the tonic (the harmonic center -- the POSITION) is changed. If you change a melody from A-major to A-minor, that doesn't happen. I'd refer to it as a "modification" as a non-techincal alternative, but I'm sure there's a technical term for it that I don't know. I'll leave the term for now, but if anyone happens to find out what the correct term is, please change it. —  MusicMaker5376 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing the modality? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking "transmodulate" as a congruent word. Usually, when musicians talk about it in shorthand, they refer to "majoring" or "minoring" a melody, or something along those lines. That won't work for an encyclopedia article, tho. —  MusicMaker5376 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the suggested new language. I banished most of the technical words and tried to simplify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well.... The passage makes sense, but it doesn't make sense in context. We say that he changed the theme from major to minor, then say that the example in which it's used is in a major key. Are we trying to say that the theme in the middle of "Defying Gravity" is minor while the rest of the song is major? Or that it's major that time, but other times it's minor? And I'm not sure if the ref referencing the sheet music does us any good -- you have to download software to see it. —  MusicMaker5376 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is trying to say that the song is mostly major, but this theme is inserted in the middle of the song in minor. Feel free to clarify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that works. I wasn't sure if the theme was always minor. The section in "Defying Gravity" is definitely minor, but I wasn't sure if it was minor at each statement. —  MusicMaker5376 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recordings

Thanks for adding the recordings section. Isn't there a London cast recording? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no London cast recording. It was planned, apparently (Martin Ball - Dr Dillamond in the original London cast - discusses it here), but never got past that stage. - Dafyd (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's worthy of note, imho. —  MusicMaker5376 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Music section

I reorganized this section to make it flow better. The old third paragraph provided a better introduction to the section, and then the two recurring themes are described in paragraphs 2 and 3. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis - intro paragraph

It seems a bit OR, but even if not, is it really "synopsis", or is it textual analysis that should go somewere else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a brief overview of the synopsis. I think it's fine and I think it's something we should encourage on other articles, actually. —  MusicMaker5376 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really think it ought to be included in musicals article synopses, you should propose it at the Musicals project. It seems like needless repetition to me, since the article's intro should have a sentence or two describing what the show is about. Plus, it makes the synopsis section even longer, and our synopses sections are often criticized as too long. Our article structure guidelines should be updated either way: if a consensus agrees with you, this should become an encouraged or optional idea; if a consensus agrees with me, this paragraph should be removed from this synopsis. That way, our article structure guidelines can receive the benefit of this FA project and continue to improve. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the synopses sections that come under fire, it's the synopses themselves. For someone who doesn't want to read a lengthy synopsis -- and many people don't -- the paragraph is very useful. I think that if it passes FAC with the paragraph, we should consider adding it to our article structure; my reasoning being that the WP community at large has put their rubber stamp on it, rather than just our WikiProject. Based on some of the GAs that have passed, I've been thinking about tinkering slightly with our structure, anyway. (Mainly in the milieu of placement of sections, but I'll go into it more when I do it....) —  MusicMaker5376 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good thought, but I'd still raise any proposed changes/reorg on the project's talk page and see if useful discussion arises. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens with this FAC and we'll go from there. —  MusicMaker5376 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Template

I noticed that the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} template got removed yesterday. Twice a week a bot checks all the cats at WP:CHIBOTCATS and adds the template. It will get readded at those times as long as Category:Chicago musicals is in the article. At WP:CHICAGO we like to follow all our articles that are in these categories. If you know of anything going on with any of these articles please add it to WP:CHIDISCUSS. Please do not remove this tag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the longest running musical in Chicago history. Please discuss here before removing template that our bot will readd twice a week anyways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

mmh...that seems like a weak category, so you shouldn't use it as an argument. I don't think that just because it's the longest running musical in Chicago history it should be under the scope, unless the show has had a notable impact in the city. Also, Cats (musical) runned in the west end for 21 years, and it's not under the project of WP:LONDON. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do a search for Chicago in the article and see if Chicago is mentioned elsewhere in the article other than the record I mentioned. Keep in mind the original argument posted first in this section which is that essentially the tag is used so that another project with a true interest can keep an eye on the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago is mentioned many times, and so are Los Angeles and Broadway; that doesn't put the article under the scope of WP:NY or WP:PLA. I agree, it's great to have even more people looking after the article, but you can't start adding projects with the sole objective of having Wicked in more watchlists. The whole point of the WikiProjects would be lost if every tiny thing related would be considered under the scope.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the articles on musicals are meant to recognize the work itself -- not any particular incarnation of the musical. Having your tag on the article makes it appear as if the Chicago production were somehow endorsed by Wikipedia. It's also slightly tacky to claim an article during an FA review. Your bot is clearly not working with consensus. If the bot tags the article again, I'm reporting the bot. —  MusicMaker5376 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not that I am trying to caliam an article because it is under FA review. I am claiming it the article is relevant because without the eyes of a Chicagoan, the article would not say that it is the longest running musical in Chicago history. I watch WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:FAR, and WP:GAR for articles that should have WP:CHIBOTCATS categories in them. Thus FA review is where I catch a lot of articles. You could fight to remove the article. The article should be under WP:NY. They are delinquent. Of the 14066 articles being tagged by the bot, this is only the second case where there was objection after the explanation above. If you really want to you can remove the tag twice a week and tell us it is not a part of our cities interest. However, the category is well-placed as a subcat of Category:Chicago culture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I really could care less as to what other watchers of your OBSCENE number of articles think. There is an objection. This article should fall under NO city's purview. Do you actually think you need to "protect" the SINGLE CLAIM that it happens to be the longest-running show in Chicago? The article is well-watched. I will personally ensure that your fine city's notation of its longest-running show will be guarded like the crown jewels. It will be held involate. It will ne'er be removed from the article. You have my solemn vow. —  MusicMaker5376 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I care whether this is part of a wikiproject -- I think a lot of wikiprojects spend more time finding articles to tag than they do on the actual work, but if it makes you happy, rule on. But, Tony, I do object to the statement that even if there's a disagreement about whether you should add a template, you'll do so anyways because "you've got a bot." Frankly, man, using your group's bot to continually revert people is a good way to tick people off (and conceivably have the bot get booted). While it's not within a 24 hour period, a bot set up in such a way as to continually revert someone would (in my view) be a definite WP:3RR problem. If you know that your bot is continually reverting good faith edits by people, you've got a responsibility to make it stop doing that -- it's a tool to speed up editing, not to gain an advantage in a disagreement. By the way, can I take from this that some member of Wikiproject Chicago is going to come help with the article, or is it just a tag? We'd definitely welcome the former. --TheOtherBob 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As for whether our project only finds articles or creates them please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles. We have created our share, often from redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I am concerned with this article. That's it. I really could care less about the fine contributions of WP Chicago. —  MusicMaker5376 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdenting for clarity. My suggestion, Tony, is that you focus on the Broadway In Chicago page as WikiProject New York may focus on the Broadway (theatre) page. Jersey Boys, another musical currently playing in Chicago is not (and i think should not) be tagged under the Chicago WikiProject. Nor are any of the other 100 or so shows that have been brought to Chicago over the past few years. The Chicago WikiProject simply does not have enough information nor enough interest to warrant coverage of these articles. This leads me to believe that the Chicago WikiProject was jumping on the FAC bandwagon. I apologize for making that accusation (and truly think it's a moot point anyway because nobody should really care how many FA or GA's a project has). Nevertheless, unless you have a significant amount of valuable information to add to this article concerning its chicago production, I would suggest you take whatever measures necessary to not include it under WikiProject Chicago's umbrella. Thank you, and happy editing. --omtay38 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not getting back to you. I literally have two dozen articles at WP:GAC. Two of them (Tyrone Wheatley and Mercury Hayes) just got put on hold requiring my attention. Apparently, based on your responses, you have already missed our assistance. It seems that when we assist and simultaneously tag an article that we are accused of jumping on a bandwagon. As Director of WP:CHICAGO, I have seen hundreds of tags put on articles I watch and rarely is such an action taken with even a single contributory edit. I understand you feel you can be high and mighty and more importantly as condescending as you want to be with statements like "I will personally ensure that your fine city's notation of its longest-running show will be guarded like the crown jewels. It will be held involate. It will ne'er be removed from the article." I just take a guess that I have been the lead editor of both as many WP:FCs and WP:GAs as you have. Of course, I may be wrong. You can check edit counts of the stars at the top of my user page. If I am wrong you now have license to condescend to me some more. However, you will note that when I am the lead editor, I do not find it worthwhile to piss on an article to claim my turf. I welcome all minor editors and as a result I have a lot of help watching the articles I may have taken the lead on. You might consider being more welcoming and less condescending with helpers in the future. I don't think it is really helpful to the project to shoe people away, and try to make fun of their efforts to help. If a guy wants to help with three edits one day, week or month you should not be demanding he make an article that is important to you his top priority or else not come back.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm concerned with someone who considers himself "Director" and "lead editor" of anything. This endless tagging of articles that are only tangentially related to your WikiProject just serves to exacerbate and illuminate the fact that you are here only for the glorification of TonyTheTiger and not for the good of the project. Three minutes spent perusing the pages of your WikiProject told me that.

No one said you couldn't edit the article. No one said your contributions aren't welcome. You were asked to not tag the article. That's all. If you equate that with "never come back", you're just driving home my point above -- if you don't get credit, you don't care. I personally volunteered to defend your single (poorly-written) edit to the death so that your PRODIGIOUS contributions can be directed elsewhere. If you chose to find it condescending, that's your problem.

Please don't tag the article. If the bot adds the tag again, I'm reporting the bot. —  MusicMaker5376 05:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First please don't refer to it as my project. I will attempt to be a little less possessive of turf than you seem to be. I think you would agree if I wanted to glorify TonyTheTiger I would do all the articles on my own. However, I choose to perform Chicago work under the WP:CHICAGO umbrella to do something that you don't know how to do, which is encourage contributions to the project where people have natural interest. Recall we are all volunteers and we contribute where we have an interest. I like to work on things related to Chicago and University of Michigan. Often times I have produced WP:GAs almost by myself and unselfishly attributed them WP:CHICAGO. I imagine this may have flown over your head in your three minute visit. Our bot will continue to tag all articles with categories in WP:CHIBOTCATS. I will not stop the bot, but I will not stop any involved editor from removing the offending category from their article. If you would like the bot not to tag your article you can easily remove Category:Chicago musicals from the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not my responsibility to ensure that the bot edits along the lines of consensus. —  MusicMaker5376 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT I must honestly say, I would have helped you pursue your FAC by addressing the auto peer review below, if I had not been so insulted by your condescension. I am sure you will be able to address them yourself given the energy you expend policing your article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. —  MusicMaker5376 13:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Tony, I've got to think that this is one of those disagreements you're going to come back to in three months and be embarassed to re-read. I think people here want to collaborate with you, but you frankly come off as though you think you're better than everyone else (with the business about the number of stars on your page, your selflessness in giving credit, etc.), and a lot of what you've said about other people here at least borders on a personal attack. I don't know if you realize that's how you're coming off - I'd bet that you're a great guy, and that this debate isn't really an accurate reflection of that. I do hope that when you look at this in the cold light of day you see just how it looks to someone who doesn't know you - and rethink how you approach this kind of problem. To your proposed solution of removing Category:Chicago musicals from the article -- unfortunately I don't think that's a real solution here. Articles should not have to be changed to prevent a bot from doing something it shouldn't...that's not a solution I think anyone can live with. So did you write the bot? If so, can you build an exclusion into it to prevent re-reverts or to allow page opt-outs? Either of those should be pretty simple - and I'm sure someone can help if needed. --TheOtherBob 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which bot is it? Does it support {{bots}}?? Happy‑melon 10:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is SatyrBot. The {{bots}} tag is meant to repel all bots, something we shouldn't have to do to make this one bot stop tagging the article. —  MusicMaker5376 13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing it with {{nobots}}, which is a shortcut for {{bots|deny=all}}. The addition of {{bots|deny=SatyrBot}}, which I have made, will, if SatyrBot accepts the restrictions of the {{bots}} template, prevent this bot, and only this bot, from editing this page. Happy‑melon 15:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What if either WP Oz or WPMT decide to start using SatyrBot in the future? I'm currently discussing this scenario with the bot creator to see if some sort of equitable solution can be reached -- either by adding a parameter to {{bots}} or by the creation of a new template, recognizable only by SatyrBot. —  MusicMaker5376 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am embarrassed for your group of fanatical provincial editors. I have never heard of a group of people who seem to be unable to handle an auto peer review saying that they don't want anything done that will attract experienced editors who are likely to want to help us. I have not said anything about being better than everyone in general. However, I am pretty good at getting articles that I am interested in promoted. If you quibble with whether I am better than the average wikipedian at this that is your opinion. I think I probably am. That is not my issue. Even members of your group think you may be wrong in removing the tag. I have actually received one apology on behalf of your groups editors and another proactive editor state that he is of the opinion that it was not proper to remove the tag. I am sorry that we are having a debate about whether a tag likely to attract editors who edit all things Chicago should be added to an article for the longest running broadway musical in Chicago history. When I saw the musical at WP:FAC I said to myself, I have heard of this musical because it plays next door to Argo Tea (an article I created) and Jersey Boys (a musical I saw in October) is shooting for its longest running broadway musical title. I as a good Chicago editor would have an interest in this article. I have a problem with people who want to pick a fight by saying I am selfish and then when I counter that argument want to pick a fight because I document selflessness. Either you are against selfishness or selflessness, but if you are just insistent on picking a fight I have a problem with you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's picking a fight. Your holier-than-thou attitude is what's not helping your case. —  MusicMaker5376 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is your statement "if you are just insistent on picking a fight I have a problem with you" meant to be a threat? - because it definitely reads as one. If you truly are not at all bothered by your behavior here and not the least bit interested in being civil, then there's little I can do about it. I (and others) have pointed out the way your comments have come across, and have politely suggested that you might want to reconsider them. I'm sorry that being asked to change your behavior equates to "picking a fight" in your mind, but I can assure you that we were all hoping for fewer personal attacks and less drama - not more. In any event, there has never been a "group" at this article - I think I've come across OmTay before on a different article, but that's about it. The "group" is what others might call "consensus." You said some things that I considered pretty offensive, and just about everyone around disagreed with them. You seem to consider that disagreement to be people ganging up on you to "pick a fight." It's not, and I can only ask again that you reconsider your actions and whether they are more or less likely to lead to people wanting to work with you. I'm sorry if my asking you to do that leads you to have a "problem" with me, as I have no "problem" with you - just your recent editing. --TheOtherBob 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD

Leaving a note here: the category in question now has its own seperate CfD (after being removed from its original by Tony). The CfD can be found here. Cheers! --omtay38 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also leaving a note here: I've reinstated the cat to the original Cfd. One editor can't circumvent a deletion discussion in progress because he doesn't want the subject deleted. —  MusicMaker5376 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto peer reveiw

If you want to improve the article on your own, I would suggest the following:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
  • The lead is entirely appropriate length for a 50kb article (3 substantial paragraphs, summarising the article concisely). Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
  • I have corrected one instance of this, and cannot find any others. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5cm, use 5 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 cm.^[?]
  • I cannot find any places where this is relevant. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
  • One instance of this fixed. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
  • I cannot find any instance of this (the script may have wrongly flagged "1000th" for this, which is entirely correct with the MOS. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
  • I do not believe that this is either necessary or possible. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
  • All instances of the phrases shown above are properly cited, and a quick search for more common weasel words found no results. If anyone spots any genuine weasel terms, please do note them here. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]
  •  Done

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall I have always found this script to be of minimal utility, and it appears particularly so in this instance. Thankyou nonetheless, Tony. Happy‑melon 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony has suggested that the autopeer review has been "ineptly" treated, so I have had another look through the article, and clarified that all of its suggestions have been taken into account and fixed where appropriate. It should also be noted, I think, that this is the third (ish) autopeer review to be carried out on the article in the last 3 months. It has also gone through a LOCE review, so is up-to-scratch style-wise. The only changes that need making to the article, really, are in the realms of content and layout, with which an autopeer cannot help. If you have more suggestions for changes, Tony, please feel free to edit the article! - Dafyd (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Wikiproject

After a discussion with TonytheTiger, I have replaced the Chicago wikiproject tag. As a member of that project, Tony believes that adding the tag to this article will attract a number of helpful editors to assist with improving this article. Please leave the tag here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The consensus of editors on this article would rather it weren't there. You can't make the decision against consensus, either. —  MusicMaker5376 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a mistake. It may prevent this article and other musicals articles from becoming FAs. Why piss off important FA reviewers? Do what you want, but this is not "consensus", it's WP:OWNership. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not ownership. No one has even insinuated that other editors can't edit the article. Tony has been invited to edit the article as he sees fit. It's taking a stand against WikiProject overtagging. Do you honestly think that a WikiProject can somehow maintain 14,000 articles? That by adding this tag, some Chicagoan is going to come by and make it the best article ever? And, frankly, I think Tony's insinuation that he will for some reason hold up the FAC because of this to be EXTRAORDINARILY petty. —  MusicMaker5376 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Why piss off important FA reviewers?, what does this mean? that Chicago project members will be angry about the article not being tagged so they will vote against or make non objective comments about the article?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is consensus (of the editors who actually edit this page, no less). Chicago and this musical have nothing to do with each other, and the tagging is therefore inappropriate. The threat about how refusing an inappropriate template may piss off "important" FA reviewers pisses me off, frankly. There is no such thing as an "important" Wikipedian -- we're all working together and collaborating. If you want to be important, be important in the real world - Wikipedia isn't the place to stroke anyone's ego or gain status. The idea that we should do something wrong to this article because it would help us win the favor of powerful Wikipedians...that's childish, ridiculous, and inappropriate. If good editors want to come help with this article, they are all-too-welcome. But if a clique of people who consider themselves "important" want to start making inappropriate changes...man, take it elsewhere.

If someone wants to reject this article as an FA because they're pissed off at consensus, that's fine. This isn't a feather in anyone's cap - it's an encyclopedia article. --TheOtherBob 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "extremely productive editors who are active in reviewing FA articles and who are well-respected by other FA reviewers." The Musicals project does not have a lot of FA articles, after all this time. Tony, on the other hand, has helped to promote dozens of articles to FA. This is not only because he knows the ropes, but because he is a superior writer who can help polish this article. Why not try to be nice to him? It's not about power, status or cliques; it's about the quality of the writing. This attitude that "all editors are equal" is very high minded, but it ain't true. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A superior writer? Seriously?!? Have you read some of the "good articles" he's had promoted? They read like disconnected ramblings.

I've been nice. Civil. He treats people like crap and you kiss his ass. Real helpful. —  MusicMaker5376 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I can't ask Tony to be civil without asking you to do the same, MusicMaker. Please comment on content, not contributors. I know that it's tough -- but if you think he treats people like crap, please give him a good example by not treating him poorly. He'll come around. --TheOtherBob 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought I was just encapsulating many of the problems that several editors have had with Tony. Word choice perhaps not the best. But it's far from helpful to have one editor feeding another's ego -- especially when that ego appears to be much of the problem. —  MusicMaker5376 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I took from what you were saying that you considered him a person too "important" or "powerful" to disagree with (and there's no such animal here). I do think we are all equal, and everyone's opinion matters - that is both the joy and problem of a wiki, but it is what it is. In any case, I don't think anyone minds being nice to Tony, and several have asked him to help with the article. But they won't be bullied by him, either - no matter how many FA's he might have. A well-respected editor should know that a "my way or the highway" approach just doesn't work with this type of project, and leads more to wikidrama than to results. Nonetheless I'd love to see him help with the article, because he might be able to help - but right now that help seems to come with a big string attached, and that's a problem. --TheOtherBob 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say there may be some pettiness from both sides, here... I agree with you, MusicMaker, that overtagging of articles by WikiProjects is bad. I agree that the category shouldn't exist as it does at the moment (for reasons I've elaborated at the CfD). BUT I also agree with Tony that there may be some content in the article that the Chicago project could help with. Trying to mediate... Tony, is there a way that you (or your members) could keep an eye on these pages without categorising/tagging it? Add it to your watchlist, maybe? Perhaps mention it on your project's talkpage. Speaking as someone who's contributed a fair amount to this article, in collaboration and consensus with many other editors, I'd love to see anything that you Chicagoans have to add about a production that I, certainly, know nothing about. But, equally, Tony, I'm sure you'll appreciate that Chicago plays a very small part in the overall article, and it's not actually worthy of so much aggravation, whether or not you're actually "claiming" it as yours (I really don't like this protectionism - I think this is one of the downsides to WikiProjects) or just tagging it so you can keep an eye on it and assist in the future. So... any chance of stopping this turning into an all-out slapfest and redirecting all our energies to improving the article, and getting it past FAC, and then we can all be proud of ourselves, no matter which project we work with? Please? Pretty please? - Dafyd (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note his slightly aggravated but willing to compromise expression.

Here Here! In agreement with Dafyd's statements and sentiment, I do hereby present Ralph, the "Slightly aggravated but willing to compromise" penguin. --omtay38 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am all about anyone anywhere in any plane of existance or parallel universe watching this article and helping its improvement! All about it. Even Ralph can feel free to watch the article and edit as he sees fit (though, I think it's probably a little difficult for a penguin to type, especially when he's so busy marching and dancing.... And penguins have NOTORIOUSLY poor grammar, but I'm willing to see beyond that....) Furthermore, I would really like to get back to work.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this entire thing may really be a moot point. Wicked is the "Longest running Broadway musical in chicago history" (per [4]). But many other shows, musical and not, have run much much longer than Wicked [5]. Soo....yah. --omtay38 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been changed accordingly. —  MusicMaker5376 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Development/original production section(s)

I think the development section is a little slight for an FA article: Is there more information about the writing of the book and/or music?

• Also, more information is needed about the Broadway production team, especially as many of them were nominated or won awards. Was the production team new for Broadway, or had they been involved in the pre-B'way production?
• Also, is there any other information about what "retooling" was done for the production for broadway, after the pre-B'way production?
• Also, what are the major differences between the novel and the show? The article says that there were major differences, but it does not describe them in any detail. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Glinda a mezzo or a soprano?

Glinda is listed as a mezzo, but doesn't the role really require a soprano with a couple of good low notes? It seems pretty broad in range though.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the page linked as a reference lists Glinda as a soprano - so we should probably reflect that here. I've changed it. For some reason, the voice parts seem to get the most changes... - Dafyd (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

In response to the request made to League of Copyeditors, I'm going to be having a crack at the article in a few minutes. My cursory look seemed to show that little has to be done, but the article will still be unavailable for two to four hours. I apologize for the delay. I'll place a hold tag while I'm working, and remove it immediately after I'm done. atakdoug (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, first pass done. I've flagged a few issues that someone else ought to address, though. I've inserted comment tags at the relevant spots, but for those who can't easily see those (hint:get WikED), I'll detail the big ones here:

• It seem awkward to keep using Stephanie J. Block's full name, though I realize that would be appropriate if that's how she's always referred to.
• I'm reluctant to leave the capitalization of Animal in the plot summary, though I can see how it could be right.
  •  Done Footnoted, as below - Dafyd (talk)
• Something seems to be missing regarding Nessa: when she appears in the second act, the writer seems to assume prior knowledge.
  •  Done Added a brief phrase introducing her at the beginning of Act I ("The Wizard and I") - Dafyd (talk)
• The discussion of the death of Nessa (or rather, the lack thereof) is a bit disconcerting for someone who hasn't seen the musical or the movie. (Yes, there are a few of us. I did read the book, though.)
  •  Done Slightly rephrased and clarified that scene - Dafyd (talk)
• Does the first musical theme discussed have an accepted name? It'd help.
  •  Done In the referenced article, Schwartz calls it a "theme for Elphaba" - so "Elphaba's theme" will do nicely - Dafyd (talk)
• The discussion of the casting in Osaka is less than clear, and I wasn't sure exactly what to do with it.
  •  Done 3 actresses share each role - I've clarified that in the text - Dafyd (talk)
• passim: I've removed some instances of theaterspeak and other puffery, but there's still some mildly unencyclopedic language, some of which I've flagged, that I think should be reexamined.

Those nits notwithstanding, I think the article was in good shape. Unfortunately, there are places at which it reads a bit like a list, particularly in the sections of financial success and other productions, but I'm not sure what you can do about that. Over all, good job, folks.

I'll leave the League of Copyeditors tag for a day or two in case I need to go through it again, then I'll send it on to proofreading. atakdoug (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dafyd, I see you addressed my question about the capitalization of Animal in a comment, but I think you may have missed my implicit point: yes, I figured out that the word was capitalized for the talking ones, but I shouldn't have had to. I think it should either have been made clear to a reader entirely new to the subject, or left out as unnecessary arcana. I admit I'm being picky, but I think it's a legitimate if minor concern. The trick, of course, is to address it without bogging down the text. atakdoug (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - it's one of those things that you get so used to seeing that you don't realise hasn't been explained elsewhere! I've added a footnote to further explain the Animal/animal difference - per WP:MOS I think that's valid... - Dafyd (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There've been a lot of changes, mostly additions, since I began copyediting; I waited until it looked to be stable and then did my final pass. I'm sending it to proofreading now. My final thoughts:

• Over all, I'm impressed; it has gotten quite a bit better than it was when I first saw it, and I think it's very solid. I am not an expert in the FA selection process, but my underinformed opinion is that y'all should be fine.
• That said, I think the beefed-up section on other productions is, frankly, tedious. If you have to include all that information, I suppose you have to, but as an outsider to the theater scene, I found it soporific.
• More specifically, the section on the Chicago production reads like overkill, and slightly (pro-Chicago) POV overkill at that. I have the impression from this talk page and the one at FAC that you have to keep the Chicago contingent happy, but it seems to set the article a bit off balance. In particular, why should we be told that people from all 50 states and so forth have traveled to Chicago to see the production?

Good luck with the FAC; I'll watch for the article on the front page. atakdoug (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Music section

One sentence says: "This also creates contrast to the songs it interrupts...." What does this mean? -- Ssilvers (talk)

It means that the music either side of it (the theme) are markedly different to it. Doesn't it? I'm not in any way a music expert, but I don't think it's that difficult to understand... - Dafyd (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If so, then there is simply a minor grammar problem: it should be contrast "in" the songs it interrupts, not "to" the songs it interrupts. Also, according to the edit summaries, there is an exception, where the theme appears in major, so why not say so? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dafyd, that's exactly what it means. The theme is an interlude, meaning it's a marked break from the rest of the song. Listen to the Defying Gravity interlude: occurs at about 3:00 in this version. I'm not sure whether the theme should be considered a part of the song (in which case "in" applies), or apart from it, in which case "to" is better. Why not say about the exception? Because it's said in the very next sentence!! Happy‑melon 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the sentences were not well written and remained unclear. I have made another attempt to clarify. See if you prefer it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FA review

Now that the article has failed the FA review, I looked at the December comments in the Peer review and see that many of them were not responded to adequately. I suggest that these be reviewed again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Room for a Trivia / Interesting Facts Section?

Is there a proper place in this article to put interesting trivia about Schwartz' composition of the show, such as that the "Unlimited" theme is the first seven notes of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"? [[6]]

See WP:TRIVIA. This information is now in the Music section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

DVD

I saw Wicked a few months ago and was impressed. I don't normally go to musicals, so I don't know what happens to them after they are shown on Broadway. Do they release them on DVD like they do normal films?

Very rarely, you will need to wait for a movie version if it ever happens.

After they play on Broadway, they often tour, and successful musicals like Wicked are usually produced on stage in other places. They usually release a cast album on CD, but they do not usually release a video of the stage performance. As the person above mentioned, very successful musicals are sometimes made into a movie musical, but sometimes the movie changes the stage version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Former Trivia

This content did not get implemented into the main article. If you can somehow implement it then go ahead and try it, although it may be fairly difficult:

Every actress who has played Elphaba on Broadway has performed the role in at least two productions of Wicked.

So what? Also, what is your source for this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

During her second-to-last performance in the Broadway production of Wicked, Idina Menzel fell through the trap door used in the melting scene and broke several ribs. She was replaced by her standby Shoshana Bean. Her accident mirrors one experienced by Margaret Hamilton, the Wicked Witch of the West in the original 1939 film, who was severely burned when the trapdoor used to facilitate her exit in her opening scene malfunctioned. Idina returned to the stage for her last show, out of costume, and performed her final song. She then bowed with the rest of the cast, including her standby.

Interesting, but where is your source for this, and where in the article would you put it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Onstage, the part of the mysterious lover is played by the actor who plays Chistery but is voiced offstage by the actor who plays the Wizard.

So what? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is the lover voiced when the Wizard remembers it later in the play? also to the "so what"er, get a life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.204.241 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On February 26, 2006 Kristin Chenoweth performed the song "For Good" alongside Alanis Morissette at the Walt Disney Concert Hall for her final performance.

So what? What is your source? Wikipedia articles, especially good ones like this, contain information that is verifiable (see WP:V), cites reliable sources (see WP:RS) and is of importance to general readers (see WP:NOTE). So, if you want to "implement" any of this info, please offer reliable sources and explain how the information is notable and adds to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Can someone create a section highlighting the departures of the musical from the plot of the book? Protective1 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this (or at least a separate paragraph) would be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

It seems to me that the recent changes to the article are merely to create WP:OVERLINK. Many of the links added have already been linked and others are dates or other information that I don't think should be linked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

The Synopsis keeps getting longer and longer. Can anyone try to reduce it back to its essentials? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Cast Recording

HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED YET. READ THE ARTICLE! It said that Anthony Callea will be releasing an album by Christmas, not the cast of "Wicked". I am going to delete where it says Melbourne recording and that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.10.141 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists rules

We can keep the cast lists as long as there is no nonsense added to them such as saying celebrities like Bill Clinton, Cher, or David Letterman are joining the casts. In order to make an addition to the cast lists, there must be confirmation from a news source or this website: [7]. It has been accurate many times because of the members HAVE spoken to cast members about replacements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by And1987 (talk • contribs)

• I disagree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked cast lists was quite clear: we do not want these lists, neither in a separate article nor here.

Suggestion. Why don't you list merchants go over to Wikia and create you own wiki with a separate article for each production? Believe it or not, no-one will come trying to delete them! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an Oz Wiki. — MusicMaker5376 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When this article was promoted to GA status, we had a long discussion about what to do with cast lists. It was decided (and there was a clear consensus on this, both from contributing editors and those who had nothing to do with the article) that long cast lists were bad. Wikipedia is not a directory. That said, notable cast members should be listed: they are important parts of each production. Basically, then, we decided that only actors who have their own articles on Wikipedia should be mentioned, and only those who took one of the principle roles (use your common sense). They should be mentioned in prose with each production ("Notable replacements in the Broadway cast have included...").

Wicked is currently a Good Article, and is not far off an FA. Long lists of actors will only add to the article's cruft... they will be deleted.

-- Dafyd (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To add... the article, without cast lists, is currently about 60kb. This is already a big article according to WP:LENGTH. Adding the cast lists pushes the article past 100kb, which is far too big. Usually, I would suggest that the cast lists could have their own article, but clearly the community has decided that they don't deserve one. If they don't get their own article, they don't go here either. Please. -- Dafyd (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since no-one else would do it, I have now posted the sact lists to wikia:oz:Wicked cast lists. Watch that space. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Film Adaptation

I was wondering why all of sudden this has been added back to the article? Well I know why but I do recall that a while back there was something similar on here regarding wicked to be turned into a film but was deleted I think because the references that were used were not very legit and I understand that. I did have a look at the references for this new one that was put on and I am a little bit skepitcal as to how reliable they really are. So can anyone confirm that they are actually legit and not just gossip sites cause it is a little hard me to tell if the information is correct. I just thought I would bring it up and if it turns out to be true being a huge wicked fan myself I am really excited for this to start going. Headstrong 345 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Headstrong 345