Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive7-06-07

How to Succeed in Business
Without Really Trying
How to Succeed in Business; Without Really Trying
	1995 Revival Logo
Music	Frank Loesser
Lyrics	Frank Loesser
Book	Abe Burrows ; Jack Weinstock ; Willie Gilbert
Basis	How to Succeed Without ; Really Trying by Shepherd Mead
Productions	1961 Broadway ; 1963 West End ; 1995 Broadway revival
Awards	Tony Award for Best Musical ; Tony Award for Best Book; 1962 Pulitzer Prize for Drama

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.

3
Archive 4
5
10

CfR: Operas by Kurt Weill to Musical dramas by Kurt Weill

This is a notification that Category:Operas by Kurt Weill is being considered for renaming to Musical dramas by Kurt Weill at here. Please weigh in if you would like. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was NOT to rename. -- Ssilvers 03:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proper use of the Project tag on Film Musicals

I noticed that "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" has a tag for this project. I am a little confused now. Are we adding Film Musicals to this project or is that a mistake? "The Rocky Horror Show" is a theatrical musical and would be a part but does not have a tag. Help me out here is this a correct use of the project tag? --Amadscientist 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The project tag should be on the stage show's talk page. It is optional on the musical film's talk page. I never bother to add the tag to film articles, since the film project is a much more active project (300 active editors, I hear) and is more likely to do substantial work to the film articles, including musical films. We currently only have a handful of active editors, and so we are doing what we can at present. Indeed, it only makes a lot of sense to add tags to articles that we intend to work on. So, if you're editing a musicals article, please do add the musicals project tag. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Procedure REQUEST FOR COMMENT for article "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"

As per Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution I am asking any and all members of this project to add input on a dispute over deletion of Taglines for this film, which was added to the National Film Registry in 2005. The original tagline "A Different Set of Jaws" is also listed as one of the most memorable taglines in history along with others. I also have at least one other reference source, an article on "The Rocky Horror Picture Show as Cultural Performance" with mention on the cultural impact of the tagline "Don't Dream It, Be It." Input is needed to resolve a current "Edit War" where an Editor keeps deleting without adding a better reason than he "Does not believe they are notable" with no further reference to back up the assertion. Thank you. --Amadscientist 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Article Structure IT'S DONE!

The article structure page hasn't been updated since May 26, 2007. I would wager that this has been long enough to say that it's working pretty well. I say let's all take one last look at it to see if there's anything missing and then, by vote below, let's determine if we can remove the not the final article structure notice. Obviously, this does not mean that we would never revise it again, but if it's doing pretty well, no need to call it unfinished anymore.

The Vote

omtay38 Remove notice
MusicMaker ~~Keep notice~~ Remove notice
Dafyd Remove Notice
Amadscientist Remove Notice
Ssilvers - Remove Notice

The result of this vote was to remove the notice. --omtay38 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I know I haven't been active for awhile, and, really, I only intend on remaining partially active, but I do have an issue to raise regarding the structure and will do so on its talk page. — Music Maker 22:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks about right. I do have a couple of suggestions, which I'll make on the talk page, but I think as it stands it serves well as a guideline for creating and editing articles. Clearly, it should be stressed that it is only a guideline - I can thing of several situations where it's best to deviate from it... - Dafyd 22:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement that the articles do not need a separate list of musical numbers (or songs, if you prefer). Although a few of the shows do a pretty good job of mentioning the songs in the synopsis, this is relatively rare, and in any case a separate songlist is, I think, a useful item. Likewise, I like a separate character list, especially where the show has clearly defined vocal parts (soprano, tenor, baritone, etc.) that can be listed there, or where it is helpful, at a glance, to be able to see a brief description of who the characters are, because the plot is complicated, and it is hard to pick the characters out easily. I think we should say that song lists SHOULD be included, but character lists are optional. Also, we need to have a guideline for the length of the synopsis. This has come up recently in many edit disputes over musicals. The film project recommends a maximum of 900 words. I think that may be a little lean and would recommend a target range of 750 to 1,000 words, unless the plot is unusually complex. This would help when discussing synopsis cleanup on various shows. For instance, the synopsis at, say "Wicked" is book length, and there is no basis for disputing it. On the other hand, I have been arguing with an editor who likes to cut the synopsis section down to a brief paragraph. A guideline would help in both cases. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the easiest and most logical response to that would be that the synopsis should be just long enough to mention all of the pertinent musical numbers and major characters without going into too much detail. That might sound glib, but I think it's ridiculous to hold us down to a word count on something that can vary greatly from instance to instance. Like I said at the other talk page, including lists just rehashes information that should logically be elsewhere. — Music Maker 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good as is. Sure i would like more information about the technical end of things, costumes, sets, props etc, that sort of thing but I believe that as a guidline that is good. Not everyone cares that much about the technical end of shows unless it is something that stands out and for the most part can be included in Production. I will admit to starting a costume section in one article but it was a show known for the outlandish costumes and is not always needed. --Amadscientist 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you could, please put <s>~~a line through~~</s> any concern you have written above that has been addressed and, if all your concern's have been addressed or more had been added, revise your vote as appropriate. Thanks! --omtay38 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far, although I still hold to the idea that lists = bad. From my experience, good and featured article reviewers really, really dislike lists. Crystallina 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Infobox Musical 2

A while back a series of guidelines were proposed for this infobox. Please take a look at the guidelines on this page to see if you have anything to add or any comments to make. Cheers. --omtay38 21:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

ohh, and if you change anything, be sure to keep it within the <noinclude></noinclude> tags, not like I did. Yah... :-D. --omtay38 23:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that someone has revised Template:Infobox Musical and has been adding it to pages (The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), A Chorus Line, etc,), regardless of the warning on the page. It should probably be nominated for deletion, but I'm not sure how you do that for a template. I'll look into it later. — Music Maker 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I think we can consider this template finalized. (Especially since I nominated the others for deletion, I think we should get the warning template off the page....) — Music Maker 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the template page.

All the templates tagged as part of this project are there. I know it's very busy and complex, but at least it's a start. --omtay38 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Yes, I know, there's a lot to look at. This one's really simply though. Looking at other wikiprojects, many of them have a specific image or graphic that they use on their templates and other things that helps define the project. The images used in this project are very eclectic, to say the least. I propose that we either find or create a unique individual graphic to become the Musical Theatre Symbol on Wikipedia. My proposition is here, but feel free to propose others :-). --omtay38 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good! -- Ssilvers 05:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that. I want to put it on bread and eat it in a sandwich. (CHOMP!) I'm probably going to start an effort to prettify our main page in one of my many sandboxes. I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre page envy.... OOOH! You know what might even be cooler? I don't know if you could do this (and I certainly can't), but maybe use the masks as heads of eighth notes? — Music Maker 07:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say that sure is spiffy. You can see by the image alone what it referes to. I commend you on the work. --Amadscientist 09:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. If it looks good in small size it'd make a perfect stub-template image too. Crystallina 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get the image in the left of the box that says "WikiProject Musical Theatre" and the box of shortcuts on the right. If anyone knows how to do that, you know, go for it.... — Music Maker 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Preview in Templates

As a stub:

This musical theatre related article is a stub. See WikiProject Musical Theatre. You can help by expanding it.

In the talk page notice:

This article is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, which seeks to complete and improve musical theatre articles on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I streamlined the language in the tag. I think shorter is better, since it won't clutter up talk pages as much and will be more likely to be read. -- Ssilvers 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! If nobody objects, I'm gonna update both the stub and the talk page notices with the new language and images

Take a look at the pretty userbox

Use it if you want, it's there for all

It looks like:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Musical Theatre.

To use it paste:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Userbox/member}}

Wherever you keep your userboxes. Cheers! --omtay38 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice! I've put it up on my userpage. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dang, this project is pretty fun and moving along nicely. Good work. --Amadscientist 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Old templates nominated for deletion

Both {{Infobox Musical}} and {{Broadway-show}} have been nominated for deletion. You can weigh in with your vote at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 17 — Music Maker 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The First 10

Now that our article structure is set in place, it's time to get cracking on some articles. Instead of asking for nominations (and, thus, delaying the process) I simply picked ten musical articles and placed them on the to-do list. I hope nobody minds. I tried to pick musicals that were on the various levels of "average" in quality, length, new-ness, and controversy. I also tried to pick ten that I think most people will know of. So, go take a look, put your name on, and let's start editing! Cheers! --omtay38 02:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Very cool, my brotha. However, should the templates be approved for deletion, the first of the major tasks should be to get them orphaned. I'm not sure of what the process will be when moving {{Infobox Musical 2}} to {{infobox Musical}} -- I don't know if a redirect will work to replace all of the instances of Infobox 2, etc., etc., etc. Having nominated them, I'll do most of the work, but I think a bot might be in order and I have NO IDEA about them....

I was thinking, too, that it might be beneficial to have collaborations. Working on, say Rogers and Hammerstein for a month, then Sondheim, then Lerner and Lowe, etc.... Thoughts? — Music Maker 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was actually planning on going out and orphaning the old template in the background. I'm really good at that sort of repetitive task. Then, when the template gets moved, we'll deal with fixing the re-directs. I wanted to get us going on some musicals just to get this party started. I definatly agree on, at some point, doing author wide "focus" weeks or so, but thought it'd be nice to simply sink our teeth into some specific articles so we have some to be proud of. Perhaps a few GA's or even an FA? And so I put up some to start on. :-D --omtay38 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. — Music Maker 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very good with technical stuff. I was an English major! Tell me what needs copy-editing first, and I'll get on it. -- Ssilvers 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say just give a read through to the articles and see anything sticks out to you as horrible. I would even suggest adding a {{todo}} template to the talk page to sum up improvements that could be made. --omtay38 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in switching the infoboxes, all I've seen are articles that are UNBELIEVABLY bad. There are a few that should probably be nominated for deletion. David: the Musical springs to mind. That article made my eyes bleed (which I find terribly inconvenient....) — Music Maker 06:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor does Flapper! assert notability. — Music Maker 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even bother switching the infobox for Oedipus for Kids. — Music Maker 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And I thought we'd all get a big kick out of this diff... — Music Maker 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! All those cast lists have got to go! -- Ssilvers 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anime stage musicals

In going through the infoboxes (and I remember this from last year), I've noticed a strange array of musicals based on anime (like Air Gear (musical)). These are stage productions with roles played by actors, but most of the productions are (as one might expect) in Japan and in Japanese. The articles are written from the perspective of how they fit in with the overall anime, and most of them have very little musical theatre-type information, like composer or lyricist or any member of the creative team. I don't even know how one might find information on these productions (in English), and I'm wondering what we should do with them. Should we consider them part of the canon of traditional musical theatre and get the articles to the standard upon which we've just decided, or should we leave them to the anime people to deal with? My own opinion is that I don't really want to deal with them, and we should leave them to the anime crowd. Thoughts? — Music Maker 06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We are frequently accused of being U.S.-centric (or US/UK-centric). So, it is good whenever we can list musicals from other countries. I think we should add to these articles what we can, and then trust that, at some point, people with more access to info will add to the articles. Better info may appear in English at any time - new information comes up on Google every day. I don't think they're a high priority to worry too much about. The most notable ones will get more attention naturally. I would put a note on their talk pages saying basically that "in order to do an infobox, we need the following info, can anyone supply it?" Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all about avoiding systemic bias, but I feel that these things are more a creation of the particular anime franchise -- just a way for them to make more money -- than anything truly about musical theatre. — Music Maker 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, as opposed to the Walt Disney Company? :-) --Ssilvers 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I was thinking that when I wrote that.... At least Disney uses well-known "composers"; I have the feeling that these things are like someone pushed the "Create Musical" button on their computer. (I wish I had one of those....) — Music Maker 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Rock Musicals/Rock Operas

I tried to make sense of the rock opera article, but it's a mess, and the editor there resisted any changes, so I dropped the issue. That editor had split the rock musical article from the rock opera article, so Broadwaygal and I worked on improving the rock musical article and the list of rock musicals. Would people please take a look and add information to the list of rock musicals and also see if you can improve the rock musical article? Does anyone have the stomach to try to work on the rock opera article, knowing that you will run into resistance? If so, I would support an effort to improve it, but I think the rock musical article is more important. -- Ssilvers 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember being over there sometime last year and, truly, it's insanity. The things that people think should be considered a rock opera are OUTLANDISH! I don't know if I have the constitution for it right now, but at some point I'll get over there and have your back. — Music Maker 20:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's gather ourselves at some point and go over there in force to review/improve the article. In the meantime, everyone please review/improve the rock musical and List of rock musicals pages, which just need some expansion, I think. -- Ssilvers 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a couple of articles

The AfD for Oedipus for Kids can be found here. Feel free to weigh in. — Music Maker 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Afd for Flapper! can be found here. — Music Maker 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Afd for David: the Musical can be found here. — Music Maker 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Afd for The Phantom of Manhattan (musical) can be found here. This one's touch-and-go, but considering that ALW's cat just erased the entire score (which is such poetic justice, if you think about it....), who knows if this will ever be produced.... — Music Maker 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

More (eventual) Afds

EVERY song for EVERY Sherman brothers' musical has a page. The guy working on them is the same guy from A Christmas Held Captive, an AfD from last summer (himself a descendant of the Sherman brothers' [I think]). They all fail notability, and, if someone can get to them before me, great. If not, I'll get to them eventually. — Music Maker 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just list your AfD's here when you're ready, so we can click on them. -- Ssilvers 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't know if everyone's watching that page, but I proposed some guidelines for article assessment on that talk page. — Music Maker 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Would anybody be interested in having a WikiProject Musical Theatre peer review? I've noticed that several projects incorporate them. Basically, if a certain member would nominate an article (s)he had been working on to be reviewed by fellow members of the project, most likely before sending it off for Good Article nomination. Reviews would be (in theory) more comprehensive than basic Article Assessment, since it is more looking at the "nitty-gritty" of articles that have been intensely worked upon already.

If anyone else would like to have a project peer review for exclusively musical theatre articles, I'll gladly create the page, but I also definitely understand that the project has a lot on its hands right now and maybe this should come later? — warpedmirror (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all. We can certainly start the page now, but I'd say it might be awhile before we actually use it. — Music Maker 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a special peer review page. We're such a small project. I think that if someone wants a peer review, they can just ask here, and a few of us can review and give comments. Nice and informal, huh? -- Ssilvers 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, that's true, too.... — Music Maker 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, we'll just put it on hold for now. When the day comes when the musical theatre articles are all potential FA's, I'll set one up. ;) — warpedmirror (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I just wanted to leave a note here for anyone involved in switching infoboxes to make sure that we keep them uniform and standardized. Make sure you read all of the directions on {{Infobox Musical 2}}, and there is a good example, there. (Which, oddly, is not on the article it represents....) — Music Maker 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Or there was.... What happened to the How to Succeed...' infobox? — Music Maker 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There it is. (I used that image as a placeholder; can't use nonfree over here....) — Music Maker 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep your eyes peeled for possible Afd's. If, in your switching, you come across an article that fails notability (you'll know it when you see it...), either list them for afd yourself and note it here or, if you're unfamiliar with the process, note it here and someone will take care of it for you. — Music Maker 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated Talk Page Notice

Heyo all. Just leavin a quick note that i'm in the process of updating {{Musicals-project}} so things might be gettin funky for a bit. Feel free to look (you can see how it displays at my sandbox. But please don't touch any copy of the notice anywhere. I have little (if any) coding experience so if I hit an edit conflict with you, I won't know what to do :-D. It's gonna be really cool when it's done, which should be very soon. Cheers! --omtay38 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. You're an HTML wiz. I think this will greatly facilitate assessment. -- Ssilvers 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Looks great! — warpedmirror (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, now i gotta figure out how to incorporate it into the article assessment page. BTW, take a look at Category:WikiProject banners and tell me if there's anything else you think would be useful that you see in other banners (reference to the banner in question would assist greatly too!) I gotta go eat dinner now, but I'll be back to finish up in an hour or two. --omtay38 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems many projects also assess an article's priority along with its quality, using the following scale. Should we follow suit? — warpedmirror (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Need	The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top	Subject is a must-have for a good encyclopaedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

My experience is that the priority rankings are not useful. They're just more work and clutter in the tag. If you take a look at the Bio assessments, they rarely fill out the priority. It's just subjective. You know if you think and article is important, and, in any case, people will work on the articles they want to work on. I vote to leave them out. -- Ssilvers 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, re: priority. — Music Maker 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Done

Don't use it yet but it's done!

Take a look at it here: {{Musicals-project}}

And look at some previews at my sandbox.

I've still got a little more work to do to make it all sync up just right, but it's goin really well.

Another AfD

The Return of The Glass Slipper and The return of the glass slipper were both empty save for an infobox stating a "2007 School Play". They've been AfD'd together here. — Music Maker 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother; they'll probably be speedilied.... — Music Maker 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating New Talk-Template

Okay, everything in place. Check out the Article Assessment page for instructions. The next big task is to update all the talk pages of the articles that have already been rated. I've added the task to the Open Tasks page too, so if you wanna claim some letters as your own, please do so. Whoo, that was quite a day of work :-D. --omtay38 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this what we're supposed to put on talk pages? {{Musicals-project}} ? If not, what? Can you please give instructions for the very technologically challenged? -- Ssilvers 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically you just copy and paste

{{Musicals-project|class = * }}

on the article's talk page (either replacing or fixing the old template.

OK, OK, that's what I wanted to know! :-) LOL! -- Ssilvers 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The importaint part:

Replace * with one of the following per it's classification on the article assessment page:

Abbreviation	Full Name
FA	Featured Article
A	A-Class
GA	Good Article
B	B-Class
Start	Start-Class
Stub	Stub
List	List
NA	Not an Article
Blank	Unassessed

It's just like filling out an infobox, only different things happen when you preview. If you take a look at the {{Musicals-project}} page, you'll find that there are other things you can add to the template to indicate that it's missing an infobox, images, and some other neat things. Hope that helps, if you need any other questions answered, feel free to ask. Cheers! --omtay38 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

Somebody suggested a Collaboration of the month page a while back and, since I was on a coding spree, I made one also.

It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/COTM

Take a look, it's really self explanatory and, I think, will be a lot of fun.

Happy Editing --omtay38 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. — Music Maker 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated the page to have the same style as the main page. Take a look and tell me if it has any display errors in your browser. (And if you know how to fix them, please feel free to). :-D --omtay38 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More AfDs

I've started a list in my userspace of the articles that, once I have collected them all, I'm probably going to nominate for deletion (I haven't made up my mind about all of them. And, honestly, I'm not particularly a deletionist, but some of them are ridiculous.). Feel free to add as you see fit, but please don't remove any -- if there are any objections, they can certainly be raised during the AfD. Once they have been nominated, rather than taking up all of that room here, I'll change that page to be a compendium of the links to the debates, and will let everyone know. — Music Maker 05:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

More cool stuff

Added a sidebar to the main page!

If you wanna keep it handy somwhere on your userpage or something, just add {{WPMT Sidebar}} to wherever you want it.

All suggestions are welcome :-D

Cheers! --omtay38 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, omtay! — warpedmirror (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New Article Assessment

The Article Assessment page has been massively revamped and reworked to fit with the new template and ranking system. Check it out, have a look, and then help out clearing the backlog of Unassessed Musical Theatre articles. I think this'll work out pretty well!

Happy Editing --omtay38 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

I've gotten through the initial list that I had posted and you can get to the AfDs for all of them here. I've added a couple more to my list and will probably nominate them after I get some sleep.
I know that some editors have raised some issues with some of the ones selected for deletion. Really, in nominating all of these articles, what I'm trying to do is get some idea of what the WP community at large will consider notable for musicals, and what it will not. There are no guidelines at WP:NOTE, WP:MUSIC or anywhere else that really address the issue (there are a couple guidelines for songs, but not entire musicals). As such, if there are concerns, please weigh in at the AfDs. — Music Maker 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The second set has been posted. — Music Maker 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Main Page prettifying

I did some prettifying as a diversion on the main page. If anyone's display is way out of wack (or in wack... depends on how you define wack...) lmk. And, of course, if anyone thinks it's horrible, lmk. I removed the section on templates; as we have a subpage for it, I didn't think it was necessary. — Music Maker 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

very pretty :D. --omtay38 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Check the first box on the right, though. The words wrap too soon and don't go all the way across. Also, how about a shading color in the title box at the top. Something that complements the other light blue and purple colors, like... periwinkle. LOL! Also, I made a few copy edits. Please check the yellow To do box. I updated the project tag template there. Did I do it right? -- Ssilvers 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Check to see if the sidebar is working a little better; I did a little tinkering. The words were occluding the shortcut box -- I think that's what you were talking about. If there are still major problems, lmk. (You did it right in the To-do, btw....) — Music Maker 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:color. Gimme a couple minutes to find some complementary colors. — Music Maker 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're officially pretty. — Music Maker 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The boxes on the right are much better. It looks to me like we need a list of musical theatre "genres" someplace, instead of merely linking to genre. Also, why do we need both a To Do list and an Open Items list? They even have some of the same items. In fact, there are four mentions of, and links to, the articles creation page. If we eliminate repetition and unclutter the page as much as possible, we will make it easier for people stopping by to contribute, IMO. -- Ssilvers 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My original thought in having the two was that one was for tasks that need to be done (orphaning templates, adding infoboxes, and the like) where the other was for over-reaching things to be done (mainly ways to improve articles). It doesn't seem to have stayed that way, and, yeah, it seems repetitive (and redundant). — Music Maker 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but on my browser (Firefox), the main sidebar stands alone...you have to scroll past it before you get to the rest of the page...if that makes sense (maybe it's just my settings?). But I checked on Internet Explorer and it's quite pretty indeed. — warpedmirror (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox, too, and it's working fine. May be your zoom setting? Lemme play around and see if I can figure some stuff out.... I really don't know what I'm doing; I'll be the first to admit. — Music Maker 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When I zoom in, it'll do that. Is "WikiProject Musical Theatre" in the first box on one line or two? — Music Maker 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on one line. Meh...I'm clueless, but how exactly would I adjust my zoom setting? — warpedmirror (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I dunno. I have a nifty little slide bar on my keyboard that does it for me.... But I think Cntl++ or Cntl+- might do it.... Cnt+0 should make it "normal". If that doesn't fix it, um.... — Music Maker 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh...well, it worked...but the project sidebar only lines up with the title box thing when it is zoomed out so far that the left Wikipedia sidebar is almost nonexistent. But don't mess with it just for the sake of me...it seems to be working for everyone else! — warpedmirror (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it does it for you, it might do it for other people. Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about HTML and WikiMarkup to really understand why that might be happening.... — Music Maker 22:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)