Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive11

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

10
Archive 11
12
13
14
15

Hair (musical)

...is currently up for peer review. Any comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. — Music Maker 5376 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards lists and succession boxes: Need Consensus

Can we agree on a rule limiting what goes in Awards list sections? I think that if the show has been nominated for a Tony or an Oliver Award, you don't also need all the regional awards and lesser awards. If there is no Tony or Olivier, then Drama Desk, etc. would be OK. I do agree that the sections should list grammys and pulitzers. As for succession boxes, do we need them at all? We already have the Tony navigation box. Today someone added succession boxes for the Drama Desk Award to Evita. Isn't this overkill? I suggest that we add more specificity to the article structure guidlines so that we could have consistency among the articles and not have too much less-notable stuff building up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Tony navigation box should be done away with. Every other award handles it by succession boxes, and that's how we should do it. There should be succession boxes for all the awards. If they're in place and correct, we can (and should) do away with the "Awards" section entirely.

I think Tony, Drama Desk, Obie, Olivier, Evening Standard. Pulitzer. That's it. Get rid of the Theatre World award -- it seems like everyone on God's green earth gets one. Regional awards should be mentioned with the specific production. If it's an award that only your mother would care about, it shouldn't be in the article. — Music Maker 5376 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Musical theatre as a category

I was exploring and "playing" with Wikipedia's categories, going to the top level. At that point, Wikipedia calls them portals. I can not access the musical theatre genre either through the theatre catagories or the music categories. Wikipedia does list this project on one of its main portal pages, but as far as I can see, one can't navigate to the musical theatre category through other categories. Shouldn't this be amended? -- kosboot (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are both Category:Musical theatre and Portal:Musical Theatre. Not sure what you mean. — Music Maker 5376 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Category:Theatre is subcategory Category:Theatrical genres. Under Theatrical genres is subcategory Musical Theatre. Should it be added somewhere else too? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Kosboot, I see that it is all a bit confusing with the various category heirarchies going through Theatre, Drama, Performing Arts, etc. If you have some solutions, please suggest them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I assumed the "musical theatre" was a bigger genre (i.e. deserving of a higher hierarchy) than it is. Thanks to you, MusicMaker5376, I've been able to find it -- both under Portal:Music and Portal:Theatre within sub-genres. Back to The Cocoanuts (musical) and I think I'm going to start working on Rio Rita (musical)-- kosboot (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's category system has always been a bit haphazard, but at the top end it just gets ugly - there are or have been at least three systems of 'supercategory' structure fighting for supremacy and to be direct subcategories of Category:Categories, so IIRC the tree splits into two or three complete duplications and merges back together further down. Add in the portal: namespace and as you noticed, you have a complete mess with no guarrantee that it can actually be easily or sensibly navigated. I think it is true that you can get to any page in the Category: namespace as a distant subcategory of Category:Categories, but the route you need to take to get there is by no means always obvious. Happy‑melon 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The inherent drawbacks of attempting to categorize everything known to man.... If Dewey could do it, you think WP editors could handle it.... — Music Maker 5376 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dewey didn't have six million facets to his personality :D Happy‑melon 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to just use the Dewey or LoC systems... :) -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth (musical)

Anyone feel like trying to clean up this article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoochie Mama, that's a mess! I came across that in its infancy; I should have kept my eye on it.... — Music Maker 5376 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Might interested theatre-related editors have a look at this?

I've posted a topic here [[1]] and was wondering what you all thoughtSmatprt (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Character lists in plays/ musicals articles

There is currently a discussion on the inclusion of character lists on articles relating to plays, musicals, etc. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. I would encourage you all to join the discussion. All opinions are welcome.Broadweighbabe (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Drama Desk Awards

I am currently working on cataloging the winners and nominees of the Drama Desk Award. Unfortunately, the actual Drama Desk Awards website is not always complete or accurate so it takes quite a lot of double checking among multiple resources. I have currently come across a bit of a snag. Neither the IBDB or the Drama Desk Awards websites lists the winners/nominations of the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actor in a Musical for 1982 and 1983. The winners/nominees for the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical in 1995 and 1996 are also missing. If anyone can help I would appriciate it.Broadweighbabe (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times nytimes.com has recently made searchable their entire archives -- all the way back to 18whatever. You can search by year, by specific date, etc. Unfortunately, to see an entire article, you have to pay a fee, but if you can't find any other way, that might be it. — Music Maker 5376 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical, 1996= Rachel York [2]. I checked the NY Times for Jan 1982-June 1982 but found no articles on the Drama Desk. I checked google books--nothing. Can anyone find those Theater World books in their library; they might have the complete lists. I'll keep looking around, back to the NY Times. (I suspect, as probably you all do, that the missing award was simply not given. Odd.)JeanColumbia (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for Rachel York. As for the others, I think it must have been given because the other 3 acting awards for musicals were: Outstanding Featured Actor and Actress in a musical and the award for Outstanding Actress in a musical were all given in 1982 and 1983.Broadweighbabe (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1995--just finished reading articles about the DD for 1995 (held May 22 (?), 1995. No mention of the "Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical", not even nominees. But then from the "The Hollywood Reporter" article (5/23/95), this very interesting sentence: "Reflecting the scarcity of new musical productions, the Drama Desk this year eliminated a number of categories that recognize the genre." That's it! I'm still digging, not much more to look at. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, 1995 was the year of Sunset. The Tonys only nominated two actresses that year for Leading Actress -- Glenn Close and someone no one remembers. (Actually, I think it was Debra Luker....) Not much else opened that year, because of the juggernaut of Sunset. It's definitely possible that they didn't give the award.... — Music Maker 5376 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MM5376, you're right, only Glenn Close & Rebecca Luker were nom'd for 1995 Tony Actress Musical, and, interesting, 3 of the ladies from Smokey Joe... were nom'd, with Gretha Boston, for Tony Featured Actress Musical. Ah, well, I'm done, searched as much as Lexis-Nexis/google/NY Times would give. Found nothing further. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol -- Rebecca Luker! I do that all the time -- I went to high school with Debra Luker! (Who, to my knowledge, has not been nominated for anything....) — Music Maker 5376 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to the producer of the Drama Desk Awards (I freelance for him) to tell him the info was missing from his website, perhaps he will find the info and have it added. Besprayed (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC) christina

Never Forget (Musical) Controversy

An editor involved the show is trying to keep a well-reported controversy from being discussed in the article, and the page has been protected from editing until the edit war is resolved. See this diff. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Never Forget (Musical). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everyone. After discussion, it seems that the parties are now content with the recent edits, which reflect the publicly available information at present. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here baby, there mama, everywhere, daddy, daddy!

Hair (musical) is up for GA!! It should sail through.... — Music Maker 5376 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

She asks me why,/I'm just a hairy guy.

I'm hairy noon and night,/Hair, that's a fright.

....I let it fly in the breeze and get caught in the trees,

Give a home to the fleas in my hair,

A home for fleas (yeah)/A hive for bees (yeah)/A nest for birds,

There ain't no words for the beauty, the splendor,/The wonder of my Hair....

-- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Shop of Horrors (musical)

I know several people said that they wanted to work on this article. Lately, anonymous editors have been adding details to the plot synopsis, and now it is very long. Can anyone slim it down, particularly the second act? I took a swipe at it, but it needs more trimming. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Total performances template

I've been mulling over the idea of a template that will calculate the number of performances of a currently-running show. I don't think it would be particularly difficult, but we may need several different ones depending on differing performance schedules for different shows. I don't know if it would be feasible to compile all of that information, but it could also have a parameter for an offset that would bring it in line with any official tallys. I'm thinking it would produce the text NNNN performances as of May 13, 2024, using {{yesterday}} to produce yesterday's date, just so we don't have to deal with time zone variances and whatnot. Any thoughts? — Music Maker 5376 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How will you handle times when the theatre is dark due to strikes, special performances and other unusual situations? Nearly every show misses a performance now and then for one reason or another. For long-running Broadway and Off-Broadway shows, Playbill keeps weekly track (see http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html), although this includes plays as well as musicals. But I don't think there is a similar counter for shows elsewhere in the world. There is this list, but it is only updated from time to time, and the curator told me that the off-broadway runs are often merely approximations: http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html#longruns.london.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would really have to look into it; I'm just throwing the idea out there before I start seeing what's possible and what's im- in terms of the code. If they miss a show, we could have a parameter like offset=-1. I'm not sure if special performances go into an overall tally, but if they do, the offset can be adjusted as necessary. Say they cancel four shows and have one special performance: offset=-3. For strikes, I'd say that there can be a stop parameter, as, usually, strikes affect all running shows. Or, we can always just remove the template if there's a strike, and leave "NNNN performances before the strike". OR we can find a way to make the template do that. I'm thinking we could have startdate= and starttotal= -- that would allow us to start from the most recent Playbill tally. Please understand that I don't think that this is something that could be implemented immediately: we can run some test tallys for a month or two to see if they jive. If they do, great, if it seems like it's about the same amount of upkeep (or more) with the template as without, then we don't use them. Generally speaking, though, it should be relatively straightforward -- for the most part, the show always goes on.... — Music Maker 5376 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just introducing myself...

Got a nice welcome from MusicMaker who said I should come here and introduce myself. My name is Christina and I make websites and graphics for a living, usually for people in the theatre industry. I have been obsessing over the Hairspray Wikipedia page for several days now as an anonymous user, which I've found to be quite inaccurate with references specific to the movie and misquoted sources, as well as just generally missing information. Having worked for several people associated with this show, I've seen it way too many times and probably know more than I should about it. Ssilvers encouraged me to get a screenname so I did. Now if I can just wrap my head around this coding format and remember where I can cite references, I'd be in good business... and then I won't ask Ssilvers so many questions! One would think a person who makes websites for a living could find this Wikipedia coding easy but it's beginning to give me a headache. I do know other shows just as well as I know Hairspray, but my really strong knowledge is limited to the musicals which have come out in the past fifteen years or so. I hope I can put it to good use. Besprayed (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) christina

Good, keep it up! You'll catch onto the coding -- if I can figure it out, anyone can! I would assume, however, that it can get a little confusing because some of it is very similar to html, and some of it is COMPLETELY different. You'll get it, tho! — Music Maker 5376 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and don't be afraid to ask questions. And don't worry too much about the wiki formatting at first: if you fix the content, you can always get one of us to help you with formatting. As MM says, the wiki coding comes over time. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! we are the nicest kids in town! --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of us, anyway.... ;-) — Music Maker 5376 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi everyone, I'm MearsMan and I've just joined the project, so I thought I would introduce myself. I'm a soon-to-be junior year undergraduate student at the moment, double majoring in psychology and sociology, and I like to spend a good deal of my free time helping out on Wikipedia. I've had a passion for musicals for a while now, so much of my time spent on Wikipedia has been devoted to editing musical theatre and musical theatre related article (I'm probably most proud of my work at Hairspray (2007 film), even though that doesn't technically fall under the scope of this project). I feel most comfortable helping with shows that have either come out or had a major revival within the past decade or so, but I can and do help with some older ones from time to time. I should also mention that summer vacation is coming up for me within the next week, and when I'm at home I won't have regular internet access. As such, I may not be too active here at first, but I fully look forward to helping out when I get back from the break. I'm sure it's going to be great getting to know all of you! —MearsMan ^talk 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. It's nice to have new recruits to the project. Watch this page, because we discuss work-in-progress here from time to time. Currently, a few of us have been working on Hair (musical), and another editor has been updating articles with the Drama Desk Award nominations. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! group hug!--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

POTO

This new section has been added: Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)#Digital Sound Upgrade. In addition to being ENTIRELY too long, it seems rather copyvio-y to me. Can anyone else take a look? — Music Maker 5376 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's almost verbatim from the press release. I'd say rephrase an cut cut cut.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it even worthy of a section? I mean, it's newsworthy, but is it encyclopedic? — Music Maker 5376 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as not notable. All major theatres must upgrade their sound systems from time to time. Unless this is the first digital sound system, it's no big deal. Maybe one sentence would be appropriate in the "Her Majesty's Theatre" article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orchestrations

Have we had this discussion?
What are everyone's thoughts re: Orchestrations? My own philosophy -- which may have changed -- is that, technically, they're production-specific. The licensed orchestrations from MTI and whatnot are more or less set in stone, but the professional productions change orchestrations from one prod to the next. Are they even encyclopedic? As a musician, I like reading about them, but I think they would cater to too small a percentage of our readership. I think that, unless they contained several out of the ordinary instruments -- like The Secret Garden (musical) -- it's probably unnecessary. — Music Maker 5376 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The information is not really encyclopedic, except where the score calls for accompaniment by a rock band instead of a pit orchestra; or in the cases where the actors also play the instruments, like the recent Sweeney and Company; or all harps and nothing else; or a particularly large or small orchestra is prescribed in the score, or something that's really unusual. It really doesn't matter to the average reader if there is one synth instead of two in the pit, or that there are 3 horns but only one flute and no clarinet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what's been said. I recently requested a source for the number of musicians in the pit of Legally Blonde (musical) (someone else added the info), and even though one was provided I think it might be best to just remove the whole thing. It's pretty production specific, and I doubt the average reader would really care all that much. Unless it's something out of the ordinary I don't see reason to draw attention to it. —MearsMan ^talk 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Songs

Quick question: do articles on songs from musicals, such as Summer Nights or Superstar (Jesus Christ Superstar song) fall under the scope of this project? While I'm asking, what about articles on soundtracks to musicals, such as Jesus Christ Superstar (album)? I couldn't tell one way or the other from the project page. These are just a few that I've come across that aren't listed as part of the project, and I can understand why they might not be part of it, but I can also see where they would be. —MearsMan ^talk 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Are they covered by an albums project? MM, over to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Were you addressing MusicMaker? It read to me like you were, but I could have been mistaken (I've been called MM in the past). I'd say the song articles definitely belong in WP:SONG and the albums in WP:ALBUM, but I just didn't know if they belonged in this project as well. BTW, Beethoven Day is another song article I came across that may need to be added. —MearsMan ^talk 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, as they are directly linked to the plays, so they would fall under the scope of this project in a second level. REMEMBER, if a new article is tagged as being under our scope, it has to be added to THE LIST. PS/can I call MerasMan MM2? maybe MMβ? or MMα?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Uh oh.... There's another MM about! (post ec:) Perhaps "MM2 -- Electric Boogaloo"?!?

I'd say that if it was written to be a song in a musical, that it would fall under our purview, as well as WP:SONG. Because, you know, without the songs, musical theatre is just... theatre. Songs from jukebox musicals can probably go either way -- I personally wouldn't fight to include them, and, frankly, those individual songs would probably be better served by WP:SONG. (Frankly, Beethoven Day should be deleted. It's not a notable song by any stretch of the imagination....)

Albums would fall under us, as well as WP:ALBUM. Cast albums -- albums sung by a specifically-assembled cast -- would be ours. Concept albums -- albums where the cast is an already-extant entity like a band -- would not. This is probably still a matter of some contention, but that's where my opinion lies.... — Music Maker 5376 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that list! So we just manually add any pages we've added to the project to the "New entries" section, right? Also, MM2 (or any of the others suggested) would be fine for me, just as long as we can distinguish between the two of us.
I agree that Beethoven Day should probably be deleted, but I've always been one to give an article a chance and see if anything comes of it, so I seldom nominate one for deletion unless it's obvious that said article is entirely unencyclopedic in nature (patent nonsense, attack pages, autobiographies of non-notable individuals, etc.). Unless anyone objects, I'll go and add the articles I mentioned above to the project. —MearsMan ^talk 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't we add something about this to the "Scope" section of the main project page, just for future reference and new members? —MearsMan ^talk 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A new Tony record?

South Pacific got 11 nominations. Is that a record for a revival? (of course, one is for sound design, which is a new category, I think). -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but close! From the Tony Awards site: "Reproductions

The revival that garnered the most nominations was Kiss Me, Kate (2000), with 12. It won five Tonys. In second place are Anything Goes (1988), Show Boat (1995), Cabaret (1998), and Into the Woods (2002), each of which received 10 nominations." Gotta love trivia!. JeanColumbia (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw that Kiss Me, Kate, and it sure was great. I went back to see it twice more, which may be a record for my watching a revival.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like the most interesting Tony season in a while. There are a number of good new shows and also a number of good revivals. In fact, it seems to me that there are more new musicals than in recent years, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gemignani

Hello all. Can anyone start an article on Paul Gemignani? He just won a Drama League Award, and he has been music director of about 40 Broadway and West End shows, plus movies, cast albums, etc. See http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=69716. He won a Tony Award in 2001 for Lifetime Achievement in the Theatre and a special Drama Desk Award in 1989. In 2006, he received a Prime Time Emmy award for "best musical direction" for the PBS/Great Performances presentation of South Pacific in concert from Carnegie Hall. See http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/music/artist_detail.cfm?id=2260 and http://www.sondheimguide.com/people.html#Gemignani and http://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=26593. He just conducted Camelot at Lincoln Center and the Sweeney Todd movie. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um.... It looks like you just did....

(But I agree -- he definitely needs an article....) — Music Maker 5376 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We also need an article on Drama Desk award winner/Tony nominee Danny Burstein. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd

Matt Doyle has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors can remark here. — Music Maker 5376 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

International Thespian Cast of Hairspray

Speedy delete? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, spam. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI/WP:OWN

I think we're going to run into a Thrill Me redux with bare: a pop opera. Please keep your eyes on it. — Music Maker 5376 17:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hair (musical)

... is a GA! It's a phenomenal article and needs just a little more work to bring it to FA! Stop by and check it out! — Music Maker 5376 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Miss Saigon, The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) and librettos...

Forgive my ignorance and the tangle of related questions, but:

There's a word for musicals which are entirely sung and don't have any spoken lines, isn't there?
If I'm not mistaken, The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) is a musical of this type, isn't it? If so, should that be mentioned somewhere in the article (using aforementioned technical word :D)
Is Miss Saigon a musical of this type?

Forgive me if I'm making a fool out of myself here :D Happy‑melon 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, is there any reason why The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) needs the extra disambiguation of the "1968"? I'm not aware of any other musical adaptations of the book.... Happy‑melon 13:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Melon. Some people call this " entirely Sung-through" or "through-composed", but these are dubious terms, not technical terms that everyone in the industry accepts. Note that the linked articles are completely unreferenced. I believe that Phantom is sung through, but I can't swear to it. But why not just say in plain English, that there is no dialogue? There is, however, another major musical adaptation of the book called Phantom (musical). This has had over 1,000 productions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also The Phantom of the Opera (1976 musical), which was Webber's inspiration for POTO. Webber's Phantom has a few spoken lines in the first few scenes, and there's an entire scene in the second act completely without music. However, sung-through doesn't necessarily mean that there's NO spoken dialogue -- it's basically a differentiation from a book musical which would have scene-song-scene-song. The article, admittedly, does a craptastic job at explaining the concept. And, yes, Miss Saigon would be considered sung-through. — Music Maker 5376 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I didn't realise the book had quite so many different adaptations! I see why the extra disambiguation is needed; although it's nice to see The Phantom of the Opera (musical) a redirect to the most popular production. It looks like The Phantom of the Opera (disambiguation) is sorely needed. Thanks for the answers to the rest. Happy‑melon 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of stage actors

Interested parties may want to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Stage actors. — Music Maker 5376 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cubby Bernstein's 2008 Tony campaign

I really, really want to make him an article. I would say he has the minimum notability requirementes ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) but I would like a group hug before proceeding.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 07:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just a joke? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's a joke, but with the support of the third-party sources, I'd say he's notable. However, the article will need to separate fact from fiction, and, thinks I, that might be a little difficult. If you can find some sources about who he actually is, that might be helpful.... — Music Maker 5376 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a publicity stunt by the Xanadu team, similar to Avenue Q's "Rod's Dilemma". I know his name (kid with orange shirt, see caption) but I can't back it up with a WP:RS.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps he should be in the article for Xanadu (musical). — Music Maker 5376 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there's not enough to write more than a stub, I'll do that. cheeriooo.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Socha

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Socha. Weigh in if you'd like. — Music Maker 5376 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical Theatre-related FAC

Creatures of Impulse, a minor 1871 bit of musical theatre, is currently up for FAC. All reviews are welcome.

Also, the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Trial by Jury is moving towards FAC, if anyone here has any opinions on it =)

Forgive me for jumping over here, but Wikiproject Gilbert and Sullivan has only two really active participants, me and Ssilvers, so it's not like advertising there is that useful =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More Spring Awakening cruft

What should be done with this information added to Spring Awakening? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gone. — Music Maker 5376 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Impact: This show is 'way popular. 11,243 people in Scandinavia sing it in the shower every day during the Ivana Zing High School radio hour." :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Kern

I just realized there are almost no articles for shows by Jerome Kern. So I'll slowly begin adding something, probably starting with Sitting Pretty. Help is most welcome. :) -- kosboot (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that and did a little work on some of the Princess Theatre Musicals. Let us know when you put up the article, and we'll try to add to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I started to make him a template back when I was making templates, until I realized that almost everything but Show Boat was a redlink. When you've got a few under your belt, let me know and I'll get a template together. — Music Maker 5376 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are already over a dozen Kern shows bluelinked at his page PLUS almost a dozen more in which he was a contribing songwriter. It's just that he wrote so many shows, that these two dozen represent only a small fraction of his total output. But I'd say you should go ahead, because the dozen linked shows include a lot of his blockbusters and historically important shows. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Composers Project bannering bot run

Greetings from the Composers Project which has just completed a bot run bannering 4,000 articles. Category:Musical theatre composers, and its subcategories (Category:American musical theatre composers etc.), were not included in the run, however historical periods were covered for mainstream music which might have caught some musical theatre composers.

The name of the Musical Theatre Project appears next to Category:Musical theatre composers on the Composers Project page here. Presumably the Musical Theatre Project will want to include these categories within the scope of its project. --Klein zach 08:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Curtains (musical) plot synopsis

I was just looking at the article, and I noticed that somebody had replaced the plot synopsis that was previously present with a more detailed account of the story that's being "used with permission" by Rupert Holmes (it actually says this in the article itself). While I'm sure this person was only trying to help, I can't help but feel that there must be some sort of policy against this. By attaching the name to it, it's implying ownership in my opinion, and since wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" we can't guarantee that the content present in the article is the actual plot synopsis that Mr. Holmes wrote. I'm sure the information could be used to improve the previously existing plot synopsis, but I feel that this one should be removed. Any comments? —MearsMan ^talk 16:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be removed as a copyvio. Unless Rupert Holmes has expressly licensed the synopsis under the GFDL, we can't use it. Just letting WP use it isn't enough -- he has to let all of our downstream users use it, too. I'll remove it, restore the old one, and put a message on the talk. Thanks for the heads up! — Music Maker 5376 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I also left a note on the user's talk page. I didn't check his contribs, but I think he's new because he doesn't have a user page or a talk page. However, someone might want to use the deleted synopsis to expand the one we have. — Music Maker 5376 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently in discussions with the editor, who claims that Rupert Holmes gave him permission to post it. Either way, the synopsis is a little un-encyclopedic -- something that's going to be difficult to explain. I'd ask that everyone keep their eyes on things -- I hope this one won't turn nasty -- but we may need to write a new one. — Music Maker 5376 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if a couple of other editors could take a look at the synopsis and decide if it's encyclopedic or not, I'd appreciate it.

Also, if Rupert Holmes actually did license it, it would have to have a note saying so. We have to maintain attribution for GFDL, so it would have to say that he wrote it. — Music Maker 5376 16:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While the synopsis is obviously very well written, I agree that it can get a bit unencyclopedic at times. Lines like "As the valiant cast proclaims their undying affection for the Wide Open Spaces of Kansas..." just seem a little too WP:PEACOCK for my liking. I'd probably agree that the best thing to do at this point would be to rewrite the synopsis using this as a sort of guide. However, it appeared to me that the editor in question was going to attempt to contact Mr. Holmes about the matter or provide a more appropriate plot synopsis themself, so we might want to give it a couple days to see what they come up with. —MearsMan ^talk 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is basically what I told the editor. We'll play it by ear and see what happens. — Music Maker 5376 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're going to opt for a new synopsis. If anyone wants to tackle it using the copyvio as reference, go right ahead. — Music Maker 5376 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hairspray (musical) plot synopsis

An anonymous editor has replaced the Hairspray plot synopsis without explanation. The old plot synopsis represented the work of several editors. I don't know if the new one is accurate, but it does not strike me as an improvement. Can someone who is familiar with the script of Hairspray please take a look and comment on the talk page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a copyvio of http://www.nodanw.com/shows_h/hairspray.htm anyway. — Music Maker 5376 18:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the memo. Is today copyvio day? :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

I'm currently in the process of promoting the Elaine Paige article to featured article status. It has been suggested in the review that I should ask someone from this Wikiproject with fresh eyes to do a copyedit of the article. I know myself that the prose isn't awful, but it's just not quite up to featured standard. If someone could perhaps find some time to do this, I would be extremely grateful, and I think the promotion of the article would also be a good for the project. Many thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Grease 2

I noticed on the project's watchlist page that Grease 2 is listed as part of the project, and a quick check of the article confirmed that our banner is on its talk page. It is my understanding that musical films do not fall under the scope of this project, but I just wanted to check here first and make sure there wasn't a reason it was included before removing it from both of the pages. —MearsMan ^talk 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There was some question in the early days of the project as to whether or not musical films would be included in our scope. This could be a remnant of that. Feel free to remove it. — Music Maker 5376 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag was added last summer, if that's any indication. Just the thought of placing that horrid, wretched movie in the same category as Les Mis or Phantom makes me... just... ACK, earworm alert, earmworm alert! María (habla conmigo) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that too. I think we clarified the position on films sometime last year. We rather enjoyed hating that film in college. "Tonight we bowl! (Tonight we bowl....)" It would be a complete waste of celluloid if it weren't so laughable.... — Music Maker 5376 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are probably still some films out there tagged with our tag. We'll remove them when we become aware of them. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury

Please vote or comment on the FA nomination of the Gilbert and Sullivan show Trial by Jury here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Voice part issue....

An editor is insistent on changing the voice parts at Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I'm close to 3RR, so could others keep their eyes on it, please? — Music Maker 5376 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Check my detailed edit summary. This is why I would rather take voice part designations out of musicals articles altogether. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we add a guidline to our article structure page like this: "vocal ranges for musicals articles should not be included in character lists unless a consensus of editors working on the article is first obtained. Any editor may remove the vocal ranges in the absense of such a consensus." -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support something along those lines; I'm getting tired of this bullshit.... As long as we spell "absence" correctly ;-).... 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to propose that someone correct the spelling in my proposals (and everywhere else!). :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Les Misérables (Netherlands)

...has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties can comment here. — Music Maker 5376 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Dear everyone: Note that new "C-class" for article assessment has been created by the Wikipedia gods. The creation of this new class has raised the bar for "B-class" articles, and some of the best "Start" class articles could move up to "C-Class" (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches). Best regards to all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whew, thanks for sharing! It's probably going to take me a while to figure out the difference between C-Class articles and Start or B-Class. By any chance do we have a good example of a C-Class musical theatre article yet, just to help us get an idea of what one looks like? —MearsMan ^talk 17:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Category:C-Class Musical Theatre articles. — Music Maker 5376 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I think of it, If an article has a reasonably good WP:LEAD, a reasonably detailed plot synopsis, a background section explaining how the show came to be written and produced, a description of productions, and a critical response section or a musical/textual analysis section, with at least some in-line referencing most of those, it is at least a C. If all those sections are really substantially complete and thoroughly referenced, and if there has been some library research to check the important references that discuss the show, it is a B (good images help, too). BTW, I don't think a show can be even a Start until it has at least a plot synopsis giving the outline of what happens in the show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples:

B-class: Hairspray (musical)
C-class: The Music Man, or Carousel (musical)
Start-class: A Year with Frog and Toad

I would condider Sweeney Todd to be C-class, rather than start. It needs much cleaning up and working out, but I don't think it meets start, per se. Are there any thoughts on this? I may have it re-assessed. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. The article is really only missing a Critical resonse section to be B-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll try and improve it accordingly. :-) Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

1776 (musical)

The synopsis there should really be cut down. I wrote it as one of my first contributions to WP, and it's always difficult for me to responsibly edit my own contributions. Also, there's a fine line to be trod, because it is also as much relatively accurate historical record as it is a musical -- I think the article for Second Continental Congress currently links to it. Several of the character quotes in the synopsis are the historical entities' actual words. Perhaps some of the dramatized things can be cut without altering too much of the Congress's proceedings? Perhaps we should enlist some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History? I dunno and am open to suggestions. — Music Maker 5376 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with it. I understand what you're saying about the historical proceedings. Hypothetically, the article could somehow indicate when the quotes are actually historical quotes. The current Historical Accuracy section focuses on the historical inaccuracies throughout the piece, and it would be nice if the historically accurate quotes from the musical were more prominent. As you said, the synopsis is rather long. I'd be willing to go through and try to edit it down without touching the quotes. What do you think? MarianKroy (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know that Jefferson's quote, "...to put in words so plain..." were his own words. Unfortunately, I don't think I've ever seen a source that delineates which were actual quotes and which were fashioned from whole cloth. Much of the dialogue between Abby and John were taken from their letters, and I know that one of the lyrics in "Is Anybody There?" ("through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory!" -- in the July 3, 1776 letter, if I'm not mistaken). But, yeah, go nuts! Like I said, maybe keeping much of the historical stuff and losing the details of the songs and song scenes might be a way to attack it. — Music Maker 5376 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I just put the movie in my DVD player.... I seem to do that annually around the beginning of July.... — Music Maker 5376 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll start on it soon. Great idea about watching that DVD. I think I'll watch mine tomorrow. Do you have the Director's Cut? I do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianKroy (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the director's cut. It restores "Cool, Considerate Men", but I think it's missing some of the stuff from the longest cut. It's such a fun show. It gets overly-pooh-poohed because it is extremely silly, but I think that watching John Adams and Thomas Jefferson singing and dancing just makes them more accessible, ya know? — Music Maker 5376 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mine has "Cool, Considerate Men" and some other bits and pieces. A fire wagon comes down the street right before Lee's return, Rutledge discusses what would become the states' rights issue during the break between "The Lees of Old Virginia" and "But Mr. Adams", Franklin and Adams see Martha at the window before "He Plays the Violin", and Hopkins shows Franklin a document he's drawn up that criticizes the recipient in no uncertain terms (I think this scene earned the DVD's PG rating). He plans to distribute them in Congress. Anyway, I'm trying to edit the synopsis, but it's so detailed I just don't know what to delete. It's such a good show. The book is so significant; it is so much stronger and historically accurate than most musical plots. I wish there was some exception for it. I don't want to delete much until I clearly decide what should stay. I really get a kick out of seeing the Founding Fathers singing and dancing. The whole show makes them see like real people. MarianKroy (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the "unalienable" v. "inalienable" debate historically accurate? MarianKroy (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Some historians consider it to be the beginning of the famous rivalry between Adams and Jefferson. — Music Maker 5376 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, presumably, but Marian might not realize it. The answer is, as Peter Stone explained in the appendix of the published book, the authors invented that amusing scene based on the fact that Jefferson always wrote "inalienable" in his notes, whereas Adams wrote "unalienable" in his notes, the same as what the final version used. No one really knows how "unalienable" found its way in the final text, but it's fun to believe that Adams corrected Jefferson on the sly. Keep in mind that no one at the time kept detailed records of what was said and done during the drafting and discussion of the Declaration (everyone was too busy running the war), and so Stone used letters (usually written at a later date—sometimes decades later) to create the narrative. The broad strokes of 1776 are somewhat historically accurate (though not as accurate as the HBO miniseries John Adams), but the fine details have been necessarily invented.

Feel free to ask me other questions about historical accuracy. As it happens, I'm working on a new version of the Declaration of Independence article and so I have most of the scholarly works on the subject at hand. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually coming back here to put a {{cn}} next to "Some historians...." I may be thinking of Stone's commentary on the DVD. If you have any other input as to what should be kept and what should be removed in the synopsis, feel free to edit it as necessary. — Music Maker 5376 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the show, and my historical knowledge is ok, but I definately wish I knew more about the actual historical events. I'll keep editing, but if I make any errors affecting the historical accuracy, please let me know. MarianKroy (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Operetta-style musicals"

An interesting development has occurred concerning American operettas and, in some cases, English-language adaptations of European operettas. We had, long ago, discussed with the Opera Project the status of operettas, and it had been agreed that operettas would be handled by the Opera Project rather than us. Of course, there is sometimes a gray area in classifying a show as a musical or an operetta. Recently, the Opera project has removed its project banner from American operettas by Rudolf Friml and Sigmund Romberg, among others, with the edit summary: "better handled by the MT project". The article structure guidelines for operas, on the one hand, and musicals on the other, vary in several respects. First, the opera project does not use infoboxes at the top of the articles, instead adding composer templates. The musicals project, on the other hand, uses infoboxes, and treats composers and librettists equally. The opera project emphasizes conductors/music directors over directors and choreographers; but that is reversed in the musicals project, since musicals often have longer runs than operas, and a musical may have many conductors during a long production run (but the director and choreographer generally do not change), and the importance of the direction and choreography are relatively greater in a musical. There are a number of other differences, but suffice it to say that in editing an article, one must choose which template to follow. I do not object to treating these operettas, or as one Opera project member called them, "operetta-style musicals" as musicals and including them within our project, since our article structure seems to fit them fine. See for example Rose Marie (operetta), which we recently converted from opera project to musicals project style. Does anyone disagree? If not, MM, I suggest that we make a notation in our Scope section to explain why some of these "operettas" are being treated as musicals. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to come to some sort of understanding with Opera as to where the line should be drawn. I don't think it's necessarily fair for them to either usurp our articles (or us theirs) or thrust articles upon us -- and we need to stick with it. I know it's difficult as the personnel around here changes frequently, but we really should come to some sort of a decision and attempt to enforce it in the foreseeable future. There are some "long-timers" between both projects: can we open a discussion with, say (and I will screw up the usernames) Kleinsach and Nrswanson to come to some sort of a MUTUAL decision as to which project will handle which articles? I don't want to sound like I'm complaining or angry, because really I'm not, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep revamping articles capriciously.

I see two solutions:

We set up an "Operetta Task Force" to be parented by both projects, covering everything written between Gilbert and Sullivan and Show Boat (for example). Let the members of the task force (which, I expect, will be slim) collaborate and decide for themselves what article structure they care to use. OR
We go through each show in the given time period, one by one, and assign it to a project based not upon the style, but upon who currently performs the piece: opera companies or musical theatre groups. As long as the piece is currently performed primarily by opera companies, Opera should handle it. If there are musical theatre groups performing the piece -- ie. Threepenny -- it should be under our purview. My rationale being that there are simply more people out there watching and performing in musical theatre than opera; the odds that someone in a production of Threepenny is going to want to join the Opera project are slim.

I really think that operetta -- both on WP and off -- is a dying breed: the die-hard opera fans consider them kerfluffle and the die-hard musical fans, well, consider them kerfluffle, as well. It's unfortunate, but these articles reflect the state of affairs in society -- nobody really wants them.... — Music Maker 5376 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like it is a rather small bunch of articles that they have rejected. I suggest that we handle it less formally. But I would be happy to act together with anyone here as a sub-committee of Musicals project people to discuss whether an operetta that gets pushed over here is OK here, or if we really think that it should be handled by opera project instead. If they take off their banner and we agree that it's OK here, then no problem, right? But as I said above, I would like to add a note to our Scope section saying that we are handling some of these operettas. In fact, I have personally done a lot of the work on most of the English-language operettas on Wikipedia, and I can tell you for a fact that the opera people don't often edit them, so I am happy to "watch" them and to work with anyone who wants to improve them. I just don't want to have to justify to musicals-project folks why we have our banner on them, so I'd like to modify our "scope" language. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since, I think, you would be the sole member of the previously-proposed task force, I would leave it to your discretion. My question, though, is when you create a new article, how do you know which article structure to follow and which banner it should carry?

However, if anyone else has any opinions of how it should be handled, I'm certainly open to suggestions. — Music Maker 5376 01:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to join said task force, though I don't know how much real use I would be. I feel a responsibility to these apparently homeless operettas, though, since I began editing Rose Marie according to musical theatre conventions and inadvertantly provoked the opera folk into declaring it a musical. I'm genuinely sorry about that. I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. I am now willing to watch over any operetta articles. MarianKroy (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't let it bother you. If there are toes to be stepped on, step on them. It just means that there were toes in the way! — Music Maker 5376 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we name our task force whatever we want? We should have a snappy name! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The O Team? :-D — Music Maker 5376 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I won't mind joining, either. I have heavy writer's block when it comes to naming it, however; I though we'd just go with a simple "Operetta task force", or something to that. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Spring Awakening

Please would a few members help me revert the people who keep trying to put redlinked replacement actor names into the cast section of Spring Awakening? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would regular replacement actors be listed in the first place. What make that event notable for inclusion in the article itself? IMO, unless abig star is stepping in with appropriate fanfare, then replacements should not be listed.Smatprt (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly our sentiments. However, battling crufty (I can only assume) teenagers is the issue. Paying close watch over the current "hot ticket" on Broadway needs to be a top priority of everyone in this project. (Sorry to pontificate....) — Music Maker 5376 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, wait. We have always allowed in bluelinked replacement actors, just not the others, and certainly not the dreaded "Current cast" lists. Then, once the original production closes, the "replacement" list usually fades away as the really well-known actors become noted in narrative text under the original production description.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I had always thought, just from some other articles I've seen (Rent, Hairspray and Spamalot come to mind). I didn't see anything about it on the article structure page though, so I was waiting to see if someone who had been here a bit longer than I have would come along and say something. —MearsMan ^talk 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. Just because someone has a stub or short bio on WP, that makes them notable for inclusion in another article? If that were the case, then should every High School that has a WP page be listed when they produce any musical? It seems to me, to be "notable" in regards to an article on a musical (or play, for that matter), then the notability should extend to the musical itself. Why would "so and so" replacement actor be notable to "Spring Awakening" is my question. Smatprt (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If the actor is notable enough for an article, in the spirit of WP:BUILD, he should probably be linked as a replacement. Within reason. Spring Awakening is a young enough show (in terms of time running on B'way) that there aren't many notable replacement actors as yet. If its been running 20 years like POTO, a prose section highlighting the more notable replacements is in order; listing them all would be quite useless.

Linking high schools is a different story. There would be thousands of high schools listed in an article like Pippin (musical), which wouldn't necessarily be helpful. High School productions aren't notable.

However, being a replacement actor on Broadway is not necessarily an indication of notability. If an actor is notable above and beyond their replacement-actor-ness -- as is, for example, Blake Bashoff -- then they get an article and it should be linked. For now. He can always be removed.

This is, at least, my determination of consensus. I don't personally believe that replacement actors should be in the article -- unless they're a major celebrity in some sort of "stunt casting" situation. However, at that point, it becomes a matter of personal judgment whether or not someone is a major enough celeb to warrant inclusion.

If we need to re-evaluate consensus, then, by all means, let's do so. — Music Maker 5376 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edit

I'm wondering what other editors think regarding this edit. Is it notable? — Music Maker 5376 17:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. Most high school productions are considered non-notable in just about every case. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Even in this case, with the censorship. Unless reliable sources are found I would reccomend removal (if not already done). --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Definately not. Almost every high school has disagreements among students, the fine arts department, and the administration. MarianKroy (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. The censorship issue here is not of national or international interest. Indeed, TIME magazine recently had a feature on high school musicals which concluded, basically, that it was surprising what controversial musicals WERE allowed in high schools these days. So this is just a local anomaly and not of encyclopedic interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I noticed some interesting ironies there. One, the idea of "throwing together" Godspell in seventeen days -- with high school students -- made me cringe. Secondly, I found it interesting that a public high school found interspecies sex -- something that isn't even possible -- objectionable, yet they had no problem producing a musical based entirely upon the Gospel of St. Matthew.... — Music Maker 5376 01:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)