Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive8-8-06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have come from other parts of Wikipedia, please see our other subpages:

as your question may be answered or may currently be in discussion there. Thanks!

-The WikiProject Musical Theatre Team

Archive Talk Pages

--omtay38 02:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Information

When an infobox is added (namely the {{Infobox Musical}} infobox) what production should be used to fill in the information if the musical has had more than one production? Should the Infobox be tweaked to exclude information that would require such a choice? How So?

I feel that the information from the first "predominant venue" the musical was staged at could be used with the current infobox (i.e. Broadway, West End), however am very open to any infobox changes. omtay38 05:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we're currently revising the template to be a little more generic, so as not to show bias toward one production or another. It may include something like a list of productions, but put the main thrust on the work itself, rather than any one production. —  MusicMaker 05:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a sample of a possible generic version of the template with basic information that should hold true for any production. When using the current infobox however, I agree, that the first predominant production should be used. – warpedmirror (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I added a template sandbox, but can't get the damn thing to work. —  MusicMaker 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What's not working? I have experience with templates (I wikified Template:Infobox University and significantly expanded Template:Infobox Education in Canada). --Usgnus 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe it has been fixed. —  MusicMaker 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I like warpedmirror's more generic infobox, but with regard to the current infobox, is there a clear understanding of what first "predominant" production/venue means? The above implies that it's automatically either Broadway or West End, but what about shows which premiered somewhere other than those two locations? Eg even though both of these shows had Broadway runs, The Boy From Oz premiered in Sydney, Australia and Assassins off-Broadway at Playwrights Horizons. I'd consider these original runs to be predominant (even if the Hugh Jackman-led Broadway run of the former might be better known now). On the other hand, I assume out-of-town tryouts (eg as for Wicked and a lot of older shows) and works-in-development, even if open to the public (eg, arguably, Sunday in the Park with George at Playwrights Horizons) should not be considered "predominant". Malfourmed 04:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If you take a look at the Template Sandbox you'll find that the in-progress infobox does not have production specific secions. -omtay38 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Film and Stage

What should be done when an article contains information on both the film and the stage version of a musical and/or an article about both musicals has the film infobox?

As long as there is enough information, my own opinion would be to split the articles. If the film of a musical is notable enough on its own, it should have its own page. Conversely, the stage production usually came first and was well-known enough to warrant a film (State Fair being a notable exception.), and would need its own article. —  MusicMaker 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO, they should always be split, unless one of them is extremely non-notable. – warpedmirror (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And another question: Do we cover musical films? My suggestion is that we focus on musical theatre but do not limit ourselves from musical films. – warpedmirror (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the emphasis on musical theatre because there is also a wikiprojcet films that seems to have it's tag on most, if not all, of the musical films. We should, however check that these musical films have the correct tag. Also, I agree with the policy of always splitting a film and stage version of the musical so both wikiproject (films and musicals) end up with conflicting page standards.
Also, we should probably leave them a note on the Films WikiProject page once we decide on what we do about this because they should know and they have numerous other members and may be able to assist in whatever action we choose.
omtay38 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
For now, I would suggest simply using your best judgement. If the article seems to mainly be about the stage production, but the Films template is on the talk page, I'd say to switch it. ESPECIALLY if it has the musical infobox and not the film infobox. —  MusicMaker 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that we're WikiProject Musical Theatre, do we still focus on films? – warpedmirror (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO yes. In my view the term "musical theatre" rather than "musicals" was adopted to signal that the scope included other aspects than just the shows themselves; not to exclude movies per se. It would be especially nonsensical when one is an adaptation of the other; ie it would be weird to include Chicago the stage show but not Chicago the movie adaptation. On the other hand I'm not sure if a movie like The Commitments should be within the scope of the project. Not so much because there hasn't been a stage version (as far as I know), but because I'm not sure where the line is between a musical film and a film with songs. Fame the movie for instance is much more of film with songs whereas (I understand) Fame the stage show is more like a "real" musical. Anyway... I'd suggest we include film musicals in scope, but don't get too fussed if some don't get covered. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we have to. Keep them, that is. Film pages will most likely have the film infobox, so maybe it's best that we let them be handled by Films. I don't think it would be strange for us to have Chicago (musical) and not Chicago (film) -- Project Films undoubtedly have their own standards and practices, and it may behoove us to leave them to it. Then, too, we won't have to differentiate between Walk the Line and Oklahoma.
And, on a different subject, Fame the stage show is utter crap. However, it, too would fall under our umbrella, even though it was created after the movie.
—  MusicMaker 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the basic idea that, if films are notable enough to get their own page, they should have one. (An example might be Chicacgo which redid the musical and won awards, as opposed to a 1930s movie of a Gershwin musical that might be all that is remembered of it.) On this note, I also think that we should leave film pages as films. The project title is 'Musical Theatre' after all. We'll except any crappy stage shows they throw at us, but I'm not too fussed about looking after the Films area of things. Daydream believer2 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub Style

What stub should be applied to what musical articles that are stub worthy (many seem to be in use currently):

others? Should articles be standardized to remove one stub type?

I'd say that {{Broadway-stub}} be moved to {{Musicals-stub}} or the like. —  MusicMaker 06:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
For those you'd want to propose suggestions at WikiProject Stub Sorting. They should be receptive to it - theat-stub is oversized with 6 pages and that's a good "selling point". Crystallina 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Stub Sorting would be an excellent place to go with this, once we figure out what we're doing. If {{Broadway-stub}} becomes {{Musicals-stub}}, then the information in it about "film" should be removed and on those articles, {{musical-film-stub}} should be used. omtay38 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. —  MusicMaker 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor note - it'd be {{musical-stub}} since stub names are usually singular. Oh, and I've seen some with {{play-stub}} also. Crystallina 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Stage Music Forms

How should other stage art forms sometimes meshed with Musicals (operas, operettas, dance productions, musical revues) be handled?

Well, there is already a WikiProject Opera, so I think we should keep our hands off those. I don't know if that project includes operettas or not, but we should probably find out. There's also a WikiProject Dance. I don't what they cover, but I would think that we should probably let them handle any dance productions. However, I think musical revues are definitely our purview. —  MusicMaker 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just checked with Opera and we were right. They've been involved with a few musicals (Show Boat, Porgy and Bess, etc.), but are going to let us take them. —  MusicMaker 03:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
There'll be some instances where the line between musical theatre and opera/operetta is going to be blurry (Porgy & Bess being one of these), but assume we shouldn't get caught up in these boundary conditions right now but handle them on a case by case instance. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the mitigating factors will be when and by whom it was written. The earlier operettas (Offenbach, Gilbert & Sullivan, and the like) belong to them. If it was written by a composer mainly known for Broadway (ie Gershwin), it's ours. This, of course, leaves Candide in a bit of a lurch. However, the name of the article is Candide (operetta), which makes me think it would be theirs. The Candide article is DEFINITELY not up to their standards; I really don't think they'd mind if we put a tag on it. —  MusicMaker 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I forgot: Candide existed first as a musical. This brings up the point of naming conventions, but I'll start that discussion somewhere else. —  MusicMaker 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question -- choreographers?

I would assume that Dance would have it pretty much covered, but that's something we should find out. —  MusicMaker 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As for musicals vs opera/operetta, I think there'll be instances where there'll be some overlap between musical theatre works and dance pieces, such as Contact (musical), but again figure these can be addressed as they arise. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Theaters

Should theaters themselves be under our umbrella?

I think they should be handled by WikiProject Theatre, but I don't know if they currently are. —  MusicMaker 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah WP Theatre should definitely cover theaters...I think. Now we're only covering shows (not Broadway itself) and the people in them so we should leave theaters to our parent project. – warpedmirror (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Places to Find Wikipedia Musical Pages

Not all the Musicals in Wikipedia are on the list of musicals. Below, please list locations of larger lists of musicals and/or their related composers, writers, performers etc.

Then we may want to start "synching" things. I must admit that I don't fully understand the concept behind Categories: are we looking for specivity or breadth? Should Category: Broadway musicals be limited to shows that only played on Broadway or that ever played on Broadway? Should we create Category:Musicals that played on both London's West End and on Broadway? I understand there is currently a Category: Broadway Operas — a deletion was proposed on our talk page before we started. I think it should be removed as it is on the whole POV. —  MusicMaker 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The way I've been categorizing musicals is shows that ever played anywhere, not only played anywhere. Personally...eh. When WikiProject Broadway was created, so was the Broadway musicals category. What if we just had Category:Musicals, but then add Category:Musicals currently playing on Broadway and Category:Musicals playing in London's West End. --warpedmirror (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if it's a great idea to have a category that can change by the day. You know, someone would have to really keep on them to keep them accurate. I think it's a good idea to keep what we have, but should we then have a category for everything else, or is Category:Musicals enough? —  MusicMaker 03:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that because this is WikiProject Musicals and not WikiProject Broadway, Off Broadway, Opera, or West end, we should simply stick to the Category:Musicals. There are WikiProjects for several of the others that can categorize their own things but I think our focus should be on improving articles, not sorting them. Thus creating an all-encompassing Musicals category is to our best benefit. --omtay38 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. We could probably get started making sure all the shows are in Category:Musicals, then get on with assessing them. However, we're going to eventually need to have an idea on the subcategories. —  MusicMaker 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so how about we go through the musicals as outlined in {{tl:Musicals-tasks}} adding Category: Musicals to anything that doesn't have it but leaving any other musical related categories intact. --omtay38 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! Let's please just come up with a consensus. One of my biggest Wikipedia pet peeves is when categories are not inherited. Categories should always always always be inherited lol! For example, Million Dollar Baby is part of Category:Boxing films and Category:Tragedy films but is not in Category:Films because the two prior categories are ultimately part of the latter. I have no problem with putting them all in Category:Musicals, but then we should not use any of those sub-categories at the same time. The only exception would be in the rare case that an article collectively has information on both a stage version and a film version, then I would tolerate it being classified in both Category:Musical films and its parent category Category:Musicals. IMO, the "currently running in..." categories would not be that hard to keep up with, because the article should always have to be updated when its subject closes/opens, but I can see how the categories might not be encyclopedic-looking. – warpedmirror (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think a safe game plan -- for the time being -- is to place everything in Category:Musicals and get rid of everything else. For now. Just to get started. I would suggest a separate Category:Musical Theater (as Category:Broadway is a little too specific) to encompass actors, composers, directors, and the like. I think once we have a better idea of what is actually out there will we be more able to accurately suggest further categorization. —  MusicMaker 06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:Broadway is for articles pertaining particularly to Broadway, not musical theatre. There is already a Category:Musical theatre - the parent category of Category:Musicals. I personally have no problem moving everything to the latter-mentioned category until we get a good game plan. :) – warpedmirror (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I vote for putting everything in one musical theatre category. If something is also a musical film, then it would get both this and musical film categories, unless the film and musical are each notable enough to split into two entries that simply link to each other. But I think that some musicals, like, say The Fantasticks have such a lame film that the film shouldn't get its own entry. Conversely, for some films, like Tommy (it was first a concept album, then a famous film, then a stage show), where the stage show is far less famous than the film can be described fairly briefly on the film's entry. Ssilvers 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Warpedmirror. An article that is only about the film version of an article should not be in Category:Musicals because it is in the subcategory Category:Musical films. An article that covers both the musical and the film should be in both categories. --Usgnus 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As do I. There are a couple of articles that really need to be forked out there (Annie comes to mind). Until then, if the article mentions both the stage version and the film version, it should be in both categories. Straight musical films without a stage production -- like Newsies -- should NOT be in Category:Musicals.
You know what I've noticed is an INORDINATE number of anime movie musicals in the musicals category -- some without stage productions. There are a couple with stage productions and I don't know what to do with them. It seems that the anime project has them more or less under control and we should probably leave them alone. Leave the stage productions in Category:Musicals, but get the ones that aren't out of there.
—  MusicMaker 04:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What if we created a Category:Stage musicals under the parent Category:Musicals? That ways it won't be weird if we have some shows in both Category:Musicals and Category:Musical films. – warpedmirror (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Musicals vs. Musical Theatre

It seems that the thrust of the project is on all of musical theatre and not just musicals themselves. Should this be reflected by a name change for the project? —  MusicMaker 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections against the change! :) – warpedmirror (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Me neither --omtay38 06:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Malfourmed 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. There are some double-redirects that need fixing. —  MusicMaker 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of that important word

It's a well-documented fact that the Americans and the Brits use different spellings. Should we be using "theater" or "theatre"?

Personally, I think that when referring to the art, we should use "theatre". When we're referring to a building, we should use the convention germane to the location of the building. —  MusicMaker 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the convention I have been taught by everybody I know who does theatre (all americans though). I say as long as we're consistant, nobody should have too much of a problem with it. --omtay38 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree. "Theatre" for the art. "Theatre" for a generic British performing arts building. "Theater" for a generic American performing arts building - however make sure you're using the exact form if referring to the actual title of the theater. Even though it's in America, the Richard Rodgers Theatre is still spelled in the British form. – warpedmirror (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not know that. That's what I was refering to, actually. —  MusicMaker 06:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree that Americans "usually" spell the word for the art "theatre", but I have no objection to our choosing the British spelling, since it is at least an acceptable usage in both places, and most of the musicals are either American or British. Ssilvers 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the usenet group hierarchy is named rec.arts.theatre.* (see FAQ 1.3 at [1]). --Usgnus 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope

Have made some specific inclusions and exclusions in the Scope section based on previous discussions (eg theatre buildings are out) and a personal feel for how the project is evolving (eg operattas are out, film musicals and revues such as the Zigfield Follies or Side by Side by Sondheim are in). Happy to revert of course. -- Malfourmed (user talk) 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I haven't yet heard from Dance regarding dance productions, but I think it's safe to say tht they're theirs. —  MusicMaker 03:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we including the award institutions pertaining to musical theater as well (most notably the Tony Awards) in our scope? Drenched 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that the awards pertaining to musical theatre are under our scope, but I think the awards themselves probably belong to New York Theatre —  MusicMaker 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Opera

Regarding the discussion of sections of articles, you might want to take a look at WikiProject Opera's guidelines just to see how they have them set up. I don't think we should identically copy what they have, but it's as similar a concept that we might find. —  MusicMaker 03:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They have a section for Roles/Characters which might be worth incorporating as an optional subsection in the Synopsis, especially for shows with large numbers of major characters. For musical theatre we probably wouldn't be as hung up on the voice type (tenor etc) as much as we'd want to include a very brief description of the part (eg "Meg Giry, ballerina friend of Christine"). -- Malfourmed (user talk) 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be okay with that, but we would really have to guard against people putting actors in the list, as well. —  MusicMaker 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Often, the book actually says, "Sid, Bob's son", so that's a good enough description, I think. If there are no descriptions right in the book, I don't see any reason why the editor can't add something short and sweet. I agree that voice types don't help much. First of all, people are usually happy to change keys for a particular artist, and second, the vocal ranges are often pretty flexible, or people sing a note down an octave, or sing in falsetto, or whatever, regardless of how it is written in the score. Ssilvers 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject New York Theatre

I've been doing some looking around, replacing instances of {{Broadway-project}}, and I found that WikiProject New York Theatre is "active". It's been one editor since January, and he's only made one edit (anywhere) in the last two months. I left him a message on his talk page when I was doing that, and he hasn't responded. It looked like he was focusing on Broadway, but had been adding some musical pages. I replaced {{Broadway-project}} with {{Musicals-project}} on anything that was for a musical (as it was redirecting there, anyway), and left the others -- mainly articles for the specific theaters.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Broadway now redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Theatre, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicals redirects to WikiProject Musical Theatre.
Apparently, when the three projects (WikiProject Broadway, WikiProject New York Theatre, and WikiProject Off-Broadway) were created, the same template, {{Broadway-project}}, was used for all three. As were all the other templates.
The {{Musicals-category}} template had found its way on to several non-category, non-talk page pages. Unless I'm mistaken, right now it is only on Category:Musicals and WikiProject New York Theatre and Off-Broadway. {{Broadway-category}} was redirecting to Musicals-category, but I've created a template there directing people to WikiProject New York Theatre. The only category it is found on is Category:Broadway theatres.
If anyone feels that these were not the right moves can certainly revert them or change them.
I've been toying with moving the templates to something using the phrase "Musical Theatre": {{Project Musical Theatre}} or the like. I would just as soon continue using "Musicals-project" as it is simply more concise. (And as "Musicals-project" is on 500+ pages....)
—  MusicMaker 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

While re-categorizing, I came across this little gem: A Christmas Held Captive. This was a show that ran for two months in Beverly Hills twenty years ago and yielded no results on Google. The lyricist was Robert J. Sherman (also Afd'ed), who was 16 at the time, and son of the Sherman mini-dynasty. It seems blatantly autobio. If you'd like to join the AfD discussion, here and here. —  MusicMaker 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

I'm relatively sure we all consider this to be a talk page, and as such it should probably be moved into the Wikipedia talk namespace. I think the main page associated with this talk page would be a good place to list all of the current proposals. I didn't want to just move this without letting everyone know, first. (Furthermore, I'm not even sure how one would do that....) —  MusicMaker 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Articles removed from Category:Musicals???

I was looking over some items removed from Category:Musicals

It seems that aritcles such as The Mystery of Edwin Drood and The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby were removed from the category because it linked to a page which summarized the musical version in a secondary paragraph.

Other articles like Lord of the Dance (musical) were removed. This is a musical dance review.. I don't see why it was removed?

Les Parapluies de Cherbourg is a famous film musical. Why wasn't it moved to Musical films?

--Kunzite 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mystery of Edwin Drood and The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby were articles primarily about the book. The article The Mystery of Edwin Drood (musical) exists, and that should be categorized under Category:Musicals, not the article on the book. While The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (musical) doesn't exist, that particular article is about the book, not the musical. The article doesn't even mention the word "musical". For example, The Phantom of the Opera is not in this category; nor should it be.
Lord of the Dance is a dance production; I thought we had decided to leave dance productions to WikiProject Dance.
Les Parapluies de Cherbourg has been moved. It was an oversight.
I thought we had decided that Category:Musicals would be applied to only things that were musicals.
—  MusicMaker 07:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hi everyone. I just discovered this project. In the last 24 hours I've added some templates: Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lerner and Loewe, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Gilbert and Sullivan and Stephen Sondheim, allowing easy access to all of the works of these great composers.

I just thought I'd note this here, if anyone has questions or projects relating to these composers or their musicals (I suppose Gilbert & Sullivan belong in the Opera Project), feel free to ask me! Daydream believer2 07:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I hope you don't mind if we add them to our eventual Template page. —  MusicMaker 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a great plan. Until that page exists, I'll report any progress on templates back here. Daydream believer2 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added Template:Rodgers and Hart and Template:Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein. For the former, there are several with no links because a lot of their works are outdated and forgotten (some rightly so). With regard to Bernstein, I've included his operettas, such as Candide. However this is a matter to which I don't know the official rules. My personal - uneducated - opinion is that the templates don't fall under our purview, but are more about aiding the layperson in navigating the site, so I have no problem with including these works. Similarly, I would think any Gershwin template would include Porgy and Bess for example. But if you prefer to eliminate operas, no probs.

Meanwhile, I'm going to have a go at adding a few Infoboxes. Daydream believer2 07:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I'm too hasty and not thoughtful enough. There's a discussion on Infoboxes before they can be implemented. Apologies. Daydream believer2 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have the feeling that we're pretty close to a consensus on that and should probably be initiating the infobox quite soon. —  MusicMaker 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I feel that the template for someone like Leonard Bernstein shouldn't be limited to just musicals. As well-known as he is in the Musical Theatre realm, he's equally well-known in the modern classical music genre. And while Mass is slightly ambiguous when it comes to genre, it is considered a "theatre piece" and, as such, can be considered a Musical for as far as we're concerned. —  MusicMaker 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added {{Stephen Schwartz}} into the mix. —  MusicMaker 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
MusicMaker, feel free to update the Bernstein template - I just don't know enough about his other works personally to do it. :) Daydream believer2 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List of musical theatre actors?

These lists exist:

Should there be a list of musical theatre actors? I think I would vote Yes on that. Ssilvers 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would rather see a category. Lists are notoriously difficult to maintain. --Usgnus 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with Usgnus. Although I see the merits of a list, it may end up being more trouble than it's worth. But I think there should be something, either way! Daydream believer2 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
True. Lists are difficult to maintain and update. A category would be a better option here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, a category it is. What categories are out there now regarding performers in musicals? Here's what I see: "Category:Musical_theatre" has a subcategory: "Musical theatre actors". There is also List of famous performers of musicals

Ssilvers 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Category for renaming

I nominated Category:Musicals based on movies to Category:Musicals based on films. Please express your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 7#Category:Musicals based on movies to Category:Musicals based on films. --Usgnus 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another category

I'm thinking of proposing Category:Source material for musicals or something along those lines for such things as Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera or Doctorow's Ragtime or even The Wedding Singer. Any thoughts? —  MusicMaker 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you clicked on it, you would get a list of all the books or films from which musicals have been made, but I can't see the utility of it. Wouldn't it be more useful just to put a link on the book's or film's page saying to click here for the entry on a musical based on that book/film and also a link on the musical's page saying that this link will take you to the book/film on which this musical is based? Ssilvers 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful for someone doing research on the sources of musicals. For instance, I once taught a unit based on works of literature or other art that had been adapted into either film or play or musical, coorelating Harlem (A Dream Deferred) with Raisin in the Sun and Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte and Sunday in the Park with George amongst others. We can and should link the two works in their respective articles, but I think this gives someone looking into the broader sources a good starting point. —  MusicMaker 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, good. Anything that is helpful to researchers is fine by me. I don't think you need to propose it anywhere, I think you can just create the category, no? Ssilvers 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should put this category tag on all the major writing teams' pages. I'll go put it on Lerner and Loewe now: Category:Surname pairs -- Ssilvers 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which actors are included?

I was tagging various musical theater actor/actress pages with the {Musicals-project} box. But there seemed to be some grey area to me, and I just wanted to clarify the scope of our project: which actors are included in this project? Are we tagging/editing the pages of every single person who has ever appeared in a Broadway musical or any musical theater production ever? (Deborah Cox has been on Broadway once...are we tagging her page too? Same for Melanie Brown, Joey McIntire, Stephen Lynch etc etc.) Or are we only tagging people who are primarily or very significantly musical theater actors? Drenched 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A worthy question, and one I was about to pose myself. I mean, while there are some obviously Broadway actors, like Patti LuPone, you also have some who are in several fields like Bebe Neuwirth, or those like Jerry Orbach who are old hands at Broadway but well known in other fields. Well, I think perhaps it should be a matter of judgement. If someone performed in a Broadway musical once in their life, perhaps that shouldn't count, just like a TV actor with one bit-part in a film isn't a film actor really. But I also don't think we should have too stringent minimum criteria. I just don't think it should be limited to people who are primarily on Broadway - many like Hugh Jackman and Kelly Bishop have made themselves happy in other projects, even while contributing to Broadway. Daydream believer2 10:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we start with people who are primarily musicals stars who have won Tonys and then we can discuss the tough cases individually where, say, someone is a well-know movie or TV star who has done some work in musicals, like, e.g., Brooke Shields or John Lithgow. If someone has only one reference to a musical in an otherwise major film career, like, say, Julia Roberts, I would *not* tag her. Ssilvers 16:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I was actually thinking along those lines and tagging people linked from the Tonys Wikipedia page under best actor noms/awards, but John Lithgow, Stephen Lynch, Antonio Banderas and other complicated folk like that were actually nominated for their work despite their fame in other areas. So I guess I'd have to agree with you guys in terms of just using judgment and dealing with the complex people later...it doesn't seem like there's any hard criteria we can use for inclusion/exclusion. Thanks! Drenched 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Musicals by composer?

Would it be useful to have a sub-category of Category:Musicals called "Musicals by composer"? If yes, would the further sub-categories be named on the model "Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals", "Musicals by Andrew Lloyd Webber", "Musicals with music by Andrew Lloyd Webber", or something else? --Paul A 02:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (Edited to add: I notice there's already, for instance, Category:Rodgers and Hammerstein Musicals, for what it's worth. --Paul A 02:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure. On most (all?) of the composer bios, there is already a list of shows that they composed. Does making a category add anything? (ADDED: Maybe it would be a good idea for the composers who composed more than, say, 5 notable shows?)
--Ssilvers 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is already Category:Works by Andrew Lloyd Webber (which BTW should be renamed Category:Compositions by Andrew Lloyd Webber). Several musicals composers have other non-musical works that belong in such a category. See Category:Compositions by composer. --Usgnus 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Added and have begun to populate Category:Musicals by nationality

I noticed that Category:Musicals is one of the few artistic categories not currently subcategorized by nationality. For example, Plays and Books and Albums all have nationality related subcategories.

I took the liberty of adding Category:Musicals by nationality as a subcategory of Category:Musicals. I also included an explanation that, in this context, nationality refers to the nationality of its authors/composers, as opposed to where the musical toured or the story is set. Within this appear subcategories by nationality, such as Category:American musicals and Category:British musicals.

Currently, I'm leaving untouched musicals with authors of multiple nationalities (eg an American composer and a British composer working together) since I wasn't 100% sure if they should appear under multiple nationalities or not.

Anyway, since nationality subcategories are already pretty standard for many other large categories of works, I figured this was a pretty non-controversial idea. But obviously if anybody has a question or issue on how I set this up, please feel free to post and I'll go with the consensus if there's a problem. Dugwiki 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of the nationality of the authors/composers, why not use the nationality of the principal premiere. Obviously Broadway/Off-broadway/Chicago, etc. shows would be American, West End shows would be British, and so forth. Then, you don't have to worry about what to do if, as is often the case I think, there are multiple nationalities on the creative team. The only problem is what to do if there is a small tryout production, say, Off-off-broadway, and then a big West End production. But I bet that very rarely happened. -- Ssilvers 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I like Sslivers' idea of the initial production nationality instead of the composers. The producer is a very significant contributor to musical theatre (think Hal Prince). --Usgnus 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I opted for the nationality of the musical's authors because that was the common standard I saw used for plays, books, movies and albums. Having gone through a bunch of musicals now, I can pretty safely say that the great bulk of the time there isn't really any controversy on the musical's country of origin: the composers almost always are from the same country and the musical opens in that country. It's very unusual to find musicals written by, say, British composers that originally premier on Broadway.
I'm leaving alone for now musicals with multiple countries of origin. For example, musicals produced by the Disney Company appear to be international efforts. They often have both British and American contributers, and Disney has production outlets in both countries. So I didn't categorize their musicals by nationality, since I'm not sure which country or countries deserve the category.
Also, fyi, Category:Broadway musicals presumably includes all musicals that have appeared on Broadway, not just ones that premiered on Broadway. So, for example, Cats would be a British musical that also appeared on Broadway, so it falls under both categories British musicals and Broadway musicals. It's an example of a non-American Broadway musical. Dugwiki 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you need to create categories for German, French, Japanese, etc. musicals? Note that there is a tag on the main article that says that we may lack a global view. Austrian: Tanz der Vampire and Elisabeth? Mozart, Ludwig II, Elixier, Der Kleine Horrorladen -- Are these German or Austrian? French: Notre Dame de Paris; Napoleon (first performed in Toronto), Starmania, Le blues du businessman, Dracula, le petit prince, LE ROI SOLEIL, Romeo & Juliette, 'Les Dix Commandements', La Révolution Française, Ali Baba, Tristan et Iseult, Le petit prince, Cindy: Cendrillon 2002", Les demoiselles de Rochefort, and Lautrec. -- Ssilvers 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been creating categories as I find musicals to fit them. Off the top of my head, so far I've added categories for American, British, Singaporean, japanese and Canadian musicals. Theoretically, you could add categories for any country, but I wanted to avoid the potential problem of having a whole bunch of empty categories. Dugwiki 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

I think that, for at least the list of "best-known" and mature musicals (or whatever we call it), spoiler warnings are not necessary. I don't think people want to be surprised by the ending of famous musicals. However, I'm not sure about newer musicals (less than 3 years old?) or musicals that are not the most familiar ones. Would a spoiler warning be appropriate, or should we assume that anyone reading a "synopsis" of a musical alread knows that it will give away the ending? Note that the Opera project has agreed that spoiler warnings are unnecessary for all operas and operettas. What say you all? -- Ssilvers 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would err on the side of adding a spoiler warning, but I don't feel strongly about it. --Usgnus 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I would omit spoiler warnings in all circumstances. People should be presumed to know that if they read a section captioned Plot, they're going to find out what happens in the show.
If you must have them, I would limit spoiler warnings to shows that are still in their original run. Once a show has closed, it becomes part of the culture, and shouldn't require explicit spoilers for the same reason operas don't, and for the same reason Shakespeare plays don't. But I stress, this is a compromise; I would prefer not to have them at all.
That said, I was shocked today to find that Three Little Pigs has a spoiler warning. There's a debate about this raging at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Jimbo Wales opined that spoiler warnings are "stupid sounding," citing Hansel and Gretel as "a particularly silly example." Since he said that, people have been revert-warring over that story, with one editor taking out the spoiler warnings, and another putting them back. Marc Shepherd 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally? I do think that there is a statute of limitations of sorts on spoilers but on the other hand, I don't know where you would draw the line between musicals that require spoiler warnings and those that don't. For example, is The Sound of Music too well-known while something like A Little Night Music is not? Ultimately I support the above user: it's part of musical culture, and we shouldn't require spoiler warnings for it.
But...while, yes, people should be smart enough to avoid the "plot" section, what if they would like to read sections below that? How will they know where the spoilers end? I guess it's just worth thinking about... after all, the reason The Mousetrap ran so long was that everyone was decent enough never to give away the ending. Daydream believer2 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea: I suggest that our default be "No spoiler warning". However, if a show has truly suspenseful or surprise ending, then the editor can put on a spoiler warning. It takes judgment on the part of an editor, and it is subjective, but I think people will know a real surprise ending when they see one. -- Ssilvers 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What if we only put spoiler warnings for shows that are still playing in theatres now? Many shows that have closed already have probably have become part of the culture as some of you have argued already, and also, if a show is closed there's not much opportunity to see it anyway (unless it's a movie or book too, or is about to be revived), so what's to spoil? But I think shows like Wicked (musical) definitely need a spoiler warning, and I agree with User:Usgnus about erring on the side of not spoiling. I agree people should know better than to read the "Plot" section if they don't want to know the end, but some people might read it because they just want a general synopsis of a show before seeing it and may not want to know the ending. I don't feel very strongly either way, but I'd also rather sound superfluous than spoil. --Drenched 02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Musical Theatre WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This post has kind of been sitting here for awhile, and I think it's a good idea for our project. Our Article Assessment page as of now is formatted awkwardly and I think it would be nice if we had a good, clean one that could also help with other aspects of Wikipedia. If no one else is for it, then I guess let's not worry about it, but is anyone else interested in this? – warpedmirror (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubs!

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/July#.7B.7BMusical-stub.7D.7D_or_.7B.7BMusical-play-stub.7D.7D --Usgnus 00:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

List of notable musical theatre productions

Please see the talk page there, regarding criteria for inclusion. -- Ssilvers 08:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Steel Pier

Not a member of the project, but I recently split Steel Pier into another article, Steel Pier (musical), about the musical. I also removed the link from your project's red link page. Just thought I'd let you guys know so you can work on the page and sort it however you sort articles in this project --Phantom784 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Added new categories for Musicals by year

I went ahead and put in category templates for Category:Musicals by year. It uses the same format as Category:Plays by year and other "by year" categories. This will allow people to sort musicals by year, by decade and by century.

FYI, though, I noticed one weird glitch. For some reason Category:21st century musicals isn't appearing on the page Category:Musicals by year as a subcategory. This is really strange because on the 21st century musicals page it DOES show "Musicals by year" as a parent category. So it's right in one place but wrong in the other. Maybe someone with some technical expertise in templates can figure that one out? Dugwiki 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to decide at what point we categorize by decade and by century. See Category:Bridges by date and Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment. --Usgnus
For reference, the by year, by decade and by century templates I used are identical to the templates for sorting Plays. Since most Musicals are theatrical, it seemed only natural to use the same template styles. The other nice thing about that set up is, if you need to create a new category for a given year, say 1965 for example, you just type {{musicalyr|196|5}} and the template automatically puts in all the subcategories and an index menu at the top. Dugwiki 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We should definitely use the existing templates, but for the earlier dates, there will be a lot of empty categories if we put them in the "year" category. See Category:14th century books. BTW, 21st century musicals is now showing up properly. --Usgnus 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What if, for years prior to 1920 (or 1900?), we just had a category by decade instead of by year? Since our main article says the first musical was in 1866, we could stop at the 1860s, right? --Ssilvers 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
For the moment, while you guys decide on a suitable cut-off point, I'll continue to categorize early plays by year. Then, once you pick a cut-off year, it would just be a matter of recategorizing that handful of plays in the sparse years, if necessary. Dugwiki 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How about for now, follow Ssilvers' suggestion: 1920+ by year, 1919 and earlier by decade. --Usgnus 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I just thought of something. Another reason to sort them by year, as opposed to by decade, is that it places them in a similar category with other art works of the year. For example, the "1902 plays", "1902 musicals" and other things from 1902 all would be subcategories of "1902 works". That might be useful if you wanted to compare everything important from a given year, such as if you wanted to put together a "year in review" for 1902. So from that standpoint, it might be worth keeping things by year, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries, because even if a particular year had only one musical it might have had a number of books or plays that could be worth reviewing. Dugwiki 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Back to 1900 by year, before that by decade. Thanks for all your hard work, D. --Ssilvers 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it looks absurd for Category:21st century musicals to have links going all the way out to the year 2100? Marc Shepherd 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, i think the whole Musicals by year thing is destined for failure. The years plays are released can sometimes be controversial (i.e. Joseph... was originally written as a high school production. Then it was changed up before it became a professional show). I vote we end this before it becomes too big of a deal. Then again, if everyone wants it...whatever. – warpedmirror (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the table for 21st century musicals going to the year 2100, it's that way because of the way the templates work for works by century. It's the same for 21st century Plays, for example. The tables for 21st century, 20th century and 19th century all use identical formats. It just so happens that we're still very early in the 21st century so most of those links are red.
As far as musicals with controversial release dates, they are very rare, and any problems can easily be handled on a case by case basis in the specific articles. The bulk of musical articles have a clear release date indicated in the text that isn't controversial. Dugwiki 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's keep going. One solution is to list more than one date. Another is to list a decade instead of a specific year. --Usgnus 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Ssilvers 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. So do we determine the category by the first time it was performed ever? Maybe I'm overreacting, but this seems like something that's only going to cause trouble and confusion. For another example, Throroughly Modern Millie (which there actually isn't currently a "musical" article for...I'll be fixing that once the new template is confirmed) opened originally in 2000, but won the Tony Award for Best Musical of 2002. – warpedmirror (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For categorization purposes the year for works is almost always the initial verified release date. Awards have no bearing. For example, if you release an album in 2000 and win a Grammy for it in 2002, it's still considered a 2000 album for purposes of initial release. So in the above example, Thoroughly Modern Millie would be a 2000 musical. It would also simultaneously be listed under the appropriate Tony Award category. Dugwiki 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just added another parent category to the template musicalyr. It makes all musicals-by-year appear as a subcategory of the corresponding year-in-music. So, for example, Category:1967 musicals now should also appear as a subcategory of Category:1967 in music.

Currently it looks like the change hasn't proprogated completely, but hopefully the system will automatically update all the category listings eventually. (Right now, for instance, you'll see "1967 in music" as a parent category on the "1967 musicals" page, but you don't yet see "1967 musicals" under the subcategories on the "1967 in music" page.) Dugwiki 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a musical an event "in music"? I would think it is more an event "in theatre", so: "1967 in theatre", if there is such a thing. But I'm just a copy editor type, and categories ain't my bag. So I just ask the question and leave it to you. --Ssilvers 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not all "musicals" are "theatre" musicals. Musicals also includes film and television and animated musicals. So it would not be correct to include all musicals under "in theatre" categories.
However, all musicals DO center on music by definition. It doesn't matter whether it's a stage musical or a film or what-not, it will have a lot of music. And often songs from both stage and film musicals become major hits. So musicals in the course of a given year do contribute a great deal to the music of that year overall. Therefore it makes sense to categorize it under the "year in music" parent category (my opinion). Dugwiki 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Slight adjustment: parent category "Performing arts" instead of "Plays"

In light of all the categorization I've been up to, I noticed that Category:Musicals had Category:Plays as a parent category. However, in the process of going through the musicals, I realized that Plays probably isn't the right parent. That's because currently Musicals includes both stage productions AND film-only musicals AND animated musicals. Thus it overlaps both Film and Theatre.

I checked around a bit, and it looks like Category:Performing arts is a better parent than Category:Plays. Note that Performing arts already includes Opera, Film and Theatre as subcategories, so I think Musicals fits in well with those. So I took the liberty of changing Musical's parent to Performing arts.

Of course, even though it seems logical to me, it's possible someone will have an objection. So if there's any issues or problems with the change, please feel free to discuss it or change it back and go with the consensus. It's literally a one-word change in the category description, so it's trivial to change it back if needed. Dugwiki 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to do this is that musicals are sometimes performed as concerts. And, as we all know, many earlier musicals had pretty weak plots or character development and were just an excuse to string together a string of songs. --Usgnus 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Good call, Dugwiki. BTW, guys, I'm going away July 27 to August 7, and I won't have internet access then. --Ssilvers 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As you noted, the opera folks did the same thing.
There's a lot of nonsense in the performing arts categories. Category:Performing arts has both Theatre and Drama as sub-cats. But Theatre has Drama and Plays as sub-cats. But Drama has Plays as a sub-cat. Marc Shepherd 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem there is that Drama and should be merged into Theatre, because I don't see any distinction between the two. Then, "plays" should be things that are not "musicals". -- Ssilvers 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a link to the vote page, I'd vote yes, although it's not as simple as that. Drama has "Drama film" and "Radio drama" as sub-categories, which don't really belong under "Theatre." It's just not a well-thought-out category. Marc Shepherd 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Listed years for List of musicals?

A consensus needs to be reached as to whether the listed years in the list of musicals should link to a specific year (i.e. 1972) or to the article regarding the year in music (i.e. 1972 in music). The page in its current state contains a variety of links. I personally would prefer the year, as opposed to the year in music; linking to the year in music suggests that the musical made a VERY important contribution to the music scene at the time. MG, 22:35, 19 Jul 2006

Actually, it looks like they should link to the "in music" articles. The reason is the the in-music pages include a subsection "Musical Theatre" which lists all the musicals for that year. For example, if you look at 1972 in music, it had a subsection that lists all the 1972 musicals. Therefore it would make sense for the years in the List of Musicals to point to the year-in-music articles that likewise already have those musicals listed in a subsection. Dugwiki 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then I'm going to get started fixing this. Thanks. MG 17:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor minor stupid question about referencing musical title in article

When the title of the musical is mentioned throughout the article about the musical, should it just appear Capitalized, Italicized, Bolded, "In quotes", or what? I've noticed that many articles have been lacking in consistency and often jump around all these options at whim. I know this is such a stupid insignificant little matter, but I have OCD and it's driving me batty and I want to settle the matter once and for all. I'm leaning towards Italicized or maybe even just Capitalized, but that's just my ungrounded preference. What do you all think? --Drenched 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistent style is not insignificant, nor is your question stupid :) For a question like this, I refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, aka MOS, and in this case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). I believe that musicals fall within the more general group of plays, for which the guideline is to use italics, not bold, (except for the use of bold for the subject of an article in the opening sentence of the article. That's the general Wikipedia guideline. I'll leave it to others to answer whether there is a different guideline within the Musical Theatre project. Cheers, and kudos to you for jumping in with serious editing and serious questions after such a short time as an editor. --Lini 03:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think the first time you use it, it should be: The Fantasticks is a musical by.... Thereafter, it should just be The Fantasticks. --Ssilvers 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your super-fast clear responses. That MOS will definitely come in handy. :) Happy editing! Take care, --Drenched 04:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Correction: It should be: The Fantasticks is a musical by.... And then formatted as The Fantasticks for the rest of the article, as you said. – warpedmirror (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IBDB.com as a reference for Broadway musicals

Just a suggestion, guys. If you spot a Broadway musical article lacking references, try looking it up at The Internet Broadway Database (www.ibdb.com). You can then cut-and-paste a link to the show's database entry as an citation to verify some of the info about the musical. IBDB is a decent, reliable quick reference if the article needs one for basic info.

Likewise, if you spot a film or TV show article with no references, try The Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). Good sites to keep in mind for Broadway/Film/TV references. Dugwiki 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Looks like we've got the pages for musicals, at least, somewhat full. I assume we start assessing now? Any particular guidelines, or should we start brainstorming them? Crystallina 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think once we should now reach a conclusion about the format of the articles. This will create easier assessment because each article can be compared to what it should have according to our format. --omtay38 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think we should put the list of musical numbers INTO the plot synopsis, unless there are not that many musical numbers. It makes for bad prose. If the musical has a long list of numbers (let's say more than 10), I think they can be listed out. Or we could leave the choice up to the writer of the article whether to list them out or integrate them into the synopsis. Secondly, I think the list of roles should be required rather than optional. Other than that, I like the format. --Ssilvers 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an awsome discussion to have, but, let's have it here. (Sslivers, i'll post your comment there too so it will not be overlooked). --omtay38 07:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place to post (but article assessment's own discussion board seems a bit dead compared to here!) but here goes anyway. Do you guys think it'd be a good idea to have each article assessed by more than one editor to promote consistency in rating? I know that assessing that massive list of musicals just once is already a rather daunting task & this is probably a stretch, but I'm just throwing that out there. P.S. I made a new article, jukebox musical, but it sucks right now, so please help fix it! Thanks. --Drenched 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Propositions

There have been two propositions made about the finalization of both the infobox template and the Article Structure page. Each of the Propositions has been made on the respective talk page but I've decided to post links to them here as they are both very important decisions and discussions. Please read each of them thoroughly and add your comments or votes.

--omtay38 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you've posted a message in my sandbox with suggestions about the article structure page, please check back there as I have added it. If you haven't posted a message in my sandbox with your opinions on the structure of articles, shame on you! :-D ---omtay38 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's pick a few articles to seriously work on

Nothing will draw more attention to this project than getting a Featured Article. Of course, that takes time and dedicated effort. Both of which we're capable of providing. Let's choose a few articles to seriously work on, improve, expand. The first goal is Good Article status.

Any suggestions? I have a few in mind but won't push them until I get group input. Crystallina 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • Wicked (musical) - gets around 20 or so edits a day (mostly by IP addresses). It's also outrageously long and predominated by lists. If we got this one to FA status, it would be seen by 20 or so people a day! (However, it's also part of WikiProject Oz and I'm not sure if they've done any work for it.) --omtay38 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to be pessimistic, but this article almost seems beyond repair. We may need a whole sub-project to fix this one up! :P But you're right, it is the most popular show on Broadway as of now, and would get a lot of hits. – warpedmirror (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest something like Footloose (musical): an article with a pretty low profile that has some content already to work with, but is still missing a lot of information and needs general cleanup. I'd rather pick an article that requires adding instead of removing content because it'd be easier to organize new info into our predecided format than to reorganize preexisting info that was categorized in a different way. Also, it has low editing participation which would make it easier for us to keep the edits made...low risk of opposition to our drastic changes, reverting, or offending that page's editors if we end up deleting entire sections of their hard work. Also, not all of our format's sections are applicable to all musicals, but they are applicable to Footloose (it has other productions, movie adaptation, a plot conducive to our songs-embedded-in-synopsis format, Tony noms etc.). --Drenched 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/talkarchive8-8-06&oldid=1140106242"