User talk:MusicMaker5376/Archive 3

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.

1
2
Archive 3
4
5
6
7
8

Fach

"...if they should need to be changed for whatever reason, just let me know, and I'll make the necessary changes." (Talk:Fach#Graphics) Perhaps that means you are the one I should be talking to instead of leaving the contradiction template at Fach - the graphics presently doesn't match the text. For more information see Talk:Fach#Contradiction template and Talk:Fach#Treble clef images. Art LaPella 06:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H2$.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:H2$.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Live Phish Template

Hello, regarding your edit here, just to let you know, I had included the zero placeholders just because that's what appears as the "official" title on the albums_{(as you can see e.g. by enlarging this image 15px)} But if you prefer it this way, no problem Spebudmak 18:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I thought that might have been what they were called, but our articles don't use the placeholders. If we want to move the articles from Live Phish Volume 1 to Live Phish Volume 01 and the like (which would make sense), we can undo that change. However, I think they should be on the template after the other live releases as, for the most part, that's chronologically how they were released. — Music Maker 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be moved to Live Phish 01 and the like? That is the printed title after all, with no mention of the word "volume". Spebudmak 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Music Maker 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Come party with us!

WikiProject Musical Theatre wants your help!

You are listed as either an active or an inactive participant of WikiProject Musical Theatre. This project has been dormant for a while, but we are very close to reaching consensus on several of the project's main documents (see the talk page for details). Once we get that business and formality out of the way, we are all free to attack the musical theatre articles of Wikipedia and have a wonderful Musical Theatre party! We want you to be a part of that!

So, come and join us! Add your input to the last few business items and then let's get this party started!
-- The WikiProject Musical Theatre team.
P.S. Invite your friends to join to! We need all the help we can get!

I know you're there, but everybody's getting one anyway and I thought you deserved one too :-D --omtay38 05:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Phish tributes

Hey I am in the middle of starting profile pages on the Phish tribute albums....why were they deleted? RunLikeAnAntelope 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because they're not by Phish and therefore shouldn't be on their discography page. A band's discography is the collection of albums recorded by them, not by other people. However, if you want to start an article called List of Phish tribute albums or something along those lines, I would say to go for it. — Music Maker 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hey, I need to ask your help on something. I just spend hours profiling these albums and creating these pages. I worked very hard to make them as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, another user is marking them as a candidate for speedy deletion (?). Please share your thoughts on the discussion pages for the list and each album's entry to help save these pages. Thanks! RunLikeAnAntelope 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP, my friend. While the nominator is correct in that they are not particularly notable on their own, as tributes to a band like Phish, I think that qualifies them for notability. The box at the top of each page tells you where you can go to weigh in on the issue, but you might want to read up at WP:MUSIC so you have more ammo than "I spent hours...." (not a valid defense of an article's inclusion in WP). I'm going to do some reading myself, there, and will weigh in soon.... — Music Maker 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha....thaks a lot. I haven't been on Wikipedia in years. So much has changed. I will read over WP:MUSIC. RunLikeAnAntelope 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Sharin' in the Groove is pretty cut-and-dried -- they're notable participants. The list, too -- there's no reason to delete that. The others will require a little more defense.... — Music Maker 04:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot mistake

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Template sandbox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:MusicMaker5376/Articles for deletion

Please take a look here before you nominate any more articles for deletion! --omtay38 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

VEMS

Do you have a personal vendetta or something against VEMS? I read your user page and saw that you didn't even graduate from Villanova, so I don't understand why you've made it your own personal mission to delete VEMS from Wikipedia. It's as encyclopedic as any other traditions on that page. It's quite notable, actually being founding members of NCEMSF and pioneers in collegiate EMS. As you said yourself above in regards to Phish, not everything is particularly notable on its own, but VEMS has made huge contributions to the Villanova Community and is and intricate a part of it and a tradition as ROTC, Men's Basketball, or Campus Myths. Please do not remove things you don't know anything about. I would really appreciate it if you would stop. RBakes08

Dude, simply put, VEMS is not notable. Not in any way, shape or form. Just because it has made huge contributions to the community -- which I don't doubt -- doesn't mean that it belongs in an article for a major university. The only organization that has any representation on that page is the basketball team; as they are, year after year, in the national eye, they deserve to be on the page. The rest of the page is historical information about the campus or university. Do you HONESTLY mean to tell me that the world at large should hold the Villanova Men's Basketball Team and VEMS on the same footing? — Music Maker 05:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about VEMS & Men's Basketball being on the same footing. The article also mentions ROTC, Habitat for Humanity, Special Olympics and the RADIO STATION. Incidentally, way more colleges have Habitat than their own BLS ambulance service. I'm not saying VEMS deserves to be worshipped (obviously) but it's as notable as any of those other things. It's is a big part of the campus' history and development. I think you're being pretty hypocritical, especially considering your own contributions. Just wondering... why do you care so much??? You didn't even graduate. RBakes08

It has nothing to do with whether or not I graduated; it has nothing to do with the VU article. It has to do with notability in general. I could care less about VEMS. Habitat is notable as it has an impact all over the world, Special Olympics is notable because its one of the largest student-run Special Olympics on the planet. The radio station sucks, but, since everything with four call letters is in WP, it deserves to be there; same deal with ROTC (though Wiskey company does win quite a few competitions...). You see, you're confusing notability with I think it deserves to be in there. Not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing. Go read WP:NOTE. Maybe you will become enlightened. — Music Maker 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the WP:NOTE, it helped me figure out what I should have written in the first place. I see where you think you're coming from in terms of notability, but I added info and links. By the wiki notability explanations, it's now notable. Can I ask if you think it should still be reversed if you could let me know why and what you think I should fix, and I will do that instead of keeping up this edit war crap. Thanks. And yes, I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. (Couldn't resist... saw your user page). RBakes08

Okay, better. I cut it down considerably -- less is more when it comes to WP. You have to keep in mind that people are reading articles to get an idea of its subject, not for an in-depth analysis. You might, too, want to read WP:NPOV -- Wikipedia is written from a Neutral Point Of View: "VEMS takes ems to the next level" is a definite violation of that. Furthermore, the blurb repeated information that is already in the article (number of students, etc.). But, adding the information about the awards gives me a reason to care about why I'm reading this information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are guidelines coming out of WP's ass as to what is deemed "notable" for inclusion, and what is not. There are guidelines for just about everything on WP. Anarchy, it is not.... — Music Maker 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and direction. This was my first revision, I wasn't trying to purposefully screw it up. I will read up on that. The cuts were good. RBakes08

Anytime, man. BTW -- very cool of you to initiate conversation rather than continuing an edit war. After doing this for so long, it's easy to get jaded and just revert, revert, revert. If you need any help in the future, don't hesitate to ask. I'm not saying that I'm always going to be able to help, but I'll try.... — Music Maker 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera

I took a stab at shortening the synopsis. I removed the stage directions and a lot of the language that didn't help the description of the plot. Take a look and see if you can trim futher. Thanks--Broadwaygal 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do.... Eventually.... — Music Maker 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Heavens Cafe

This show was added to the List of rock musicals recently. I just deleted it because it didn't appear to be notable. It does however have an article. I am wondering if we should consider it for deletion? Thanks--Broadwaygal 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I don't think it's particularly notable, but I think it would fail an AfD.... I'm gonna infobox it and tag it. — Music Maker 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting info

I would appreciate if you would please stop cutting character lists and be more conservative in cutting other information so liberally from the musicals articles. I appreciate that you want to rationalize and standardize the articles, but please try to err a little bit on the side of keeping interesting information in. After you have deleted the most obvious cruft, why not suggest a deletion on the talk page or at the project to see if people agree with your plans? Editing is supposed to be by WP:CONSENSUS, which is why we have a project. I feel that you are more of a deletionist than I am, and of course, people can disagree what is best, but it is easier to delete than to add useful information, and I am afraid that you are deleting information that people worked hard to create and that is ultimately of interest to users. Thanks for considering my opinion on this, and thanks for all your excellent work since your return to the project. -- Ssilvers 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's harder to delete than it is to add useless information. I'm assuming you're talking about Avenue Q and Wicked (musical). Those articles were HORRENDOUS before I got out my blue pencil. I mean, completely unreadable in every way. I took out in the neighborhood of 8,000 bytes in both of them, and no information necessary to the casual reader was lost. Wikipedia is written for the reader, not to show off the knowledge of the editor. I don't think anything I deleted was of any interest to anyone but the person who included it. Wikipedia's not paper, but we still have a duty to sustain the interest of the reader. I LOVE both of those shows, and I couldn't read either article. There's still much work to be done on them, but they are in a much more manageable state, now.

When I come across an article which, in my opinion, will benefit from massive cuts, I'm going to do it. Someone has to. Wikipedia isn't just about contributing, it's about editing. That's why we're called "editors" and not "contributors". — Music Maker 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, can't we compromise a little? Do my opinions mean nothing to you? I think we both want to improve the articles, but we should be willing to listen to each other's ideas. Please see below. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. — Music Maker 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Headings thoughts

I note that you changed headings in the West Side Story article. I prefer to just bold some of the minor headings so that they don't clutter up the TOC and are smaller and less obtrusive while reading the article. Do you think that all of those little sections need their own line in the TOC? My feeling is that if the section is so small that several of them fit on one viewing screen, that they only need bold headings, but not a TOC heading. Let me know what you think. This might be an issue for discussion on the project page, since it affects nearly every article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have WP set up so as not to use the TOCs. I think they're useless, just for the very reason that they tend to be a cluttered mess. However, using the headings allows for several edit buttons, which, I believe, come in quite handy. Furthermore, if one is editing the whole page, it makes it MUCH easier to find the headings in the edit box. I guess it's six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.... — Music Maker 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on West Side Story. I can't work on it today, so please hold off on any changes until I get a chance to consider your comments. I appreciate your comments above about deleting stuff, but we agreed in the project NOT to cut character lists. You don't have to add them, but please don't delete them. Many readers do find them useful. I agree with many of your deletions, just not the ones that have to do with subjects like character information. Also, for original B'way or West End casts, I don't see what's wrong with a reasonably complete cast list (not ensemble or understudies, of course), with minor named principals included - but not for the subsequent productions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we agreed not to cut song lists, not character lists.

My philosophy on cast lists is thus: if the reader can find it somewhere else online -- and, in fact, we LINK THEM TO the information -- then there's no reason it should be in the article. Remember: we're an encyclopedia, not a compendium of knowledge. I think that, if it can't be handled in prose, a SHORT list including ONLY the leads is acceptable. Other than that, it's really of no encyclopedic interest. If a character doesn't get mentioned in the synopsis -- ie, if there is no plot value to a character, if you wouldn't go running up to your friends and say, "I'm so psyched! I'm playing BOOTSIE in "City of Angels"!" (an actual character...) -- then there's no reason it should be in an encyclopedia article.

Re:WSS, I'll leave the lists for now, but I'm probably going to edit up the prose a little. — Music Maker 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Color purple musical.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Color purple musical.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with original cast listings?

Noticed you've deleted a few cast lists from some Broadway articles (Dance With Me (musical), Angel (musical). Why? This seems to be very pertinent information - especially for older shows and shows that had short runs.J. Van Meter 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because entire cast lists are non-notable and unencyclopedic. If the average reader REALLY needs the information, we link them to ibdb. — Music Maker 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me. The personnel is listed (track by track) in the articles about record albums; casts are listed in movie articles, why not for theatrical productions? J. Van Meter 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking to ibdb is okay, except that it typically only shows the opening night cast. See the link [1] from the Aida (musical) article for example. Shouldn't we include cast changes, especially when they involve notable actors? And I have to admit that J. Van Meter has a point that we're not being consistent with other types of articles. I know consistency is not the sole determinant of what goes in an article, but it helps. Truthanado 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aida (musical)

You recently made some significant edits to the Aida (musical) article. Thanks for cleaning it up ... it was getting a bit long and I agree with most of what you did. I have some questions and comments, though. It seems that the original Broadway run open/close/theater information is encyclopedic, yet it has been removed. The 87-city national tour is also encyclopedic, yet it has been reduced to a generic statement "...produced a successful national tour..." Would you please explain those and perhaps consider adding that information to the current article. Thanks. Truthanado 15:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The original Broadway information was removed from the infobox -- we're trying to get the infoboxes to reflect the show as a literary work rather than any one production. Having the information about the B'way production in the infobox would imply that that production is in some way superior to other productions, so the info shouldn't be there. However, you're right, it should be somewhere else in the article. We were doing a flurry of infobox switches in order to get the old ones deleted, and I fear I may have not been careful in deleting info.

And I don't really remember what it was that I deleted from the article, exactly, but I can say with some certainty that a list of the 87 cities is unacceptable. The tour, yes, is encyclopedic, but not a blow-by-blow of the cities it visited. A prose paragraph mentioning some of the major cities or theatres is probably a good idea. — Music Maker 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I think we should nominate Kerry Winter for deletion. If you agree, go ahead, and I'll endorse it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I prod-ed it. I've never prodded anything before. We'll see how that turns out. — Music Maker 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Florodora and Edwardian Musical Comedies

In going through the articles and infoboxing them, I'm columnizing the song lists. Usually, if they're numbered, I take out the numbers as they're (probably) not the numbers used in the score. Looking at Florodora, it seems that those might be the score numbers, so I just wanted to check before I remove them. — MusicMaker 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are the original musical number designations. See [2]. This site lists the musical numbers and has midi files made from the original scores to about 120 old musicals. I have begun stubs or articles on several dozen of these, beginning with the ones that had runs of over 400 performances on the West End or in NY, which was very good in those days. BTW, see my new message on the Musicals talk page, where I thank you for all your hard work and for your flexibility on the Cast list issue. -- Ssilvers 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A box? Sure, but don't go out of your way, it's not crucial! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a box like on my talk page. Let me know if you have any color requests.... — Music Maker 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Colors... Hmm. I don't really think about design much. Something not too garish but still noticeable... sorry, that's not much help! I like the colors in this box:

This user is interested in environmentalism.

-- Ssilvers 01:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Talk page box! -- Ssilvers 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Show

This is a mess, if you're feeling energetic tomorrow. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I may do it now.... — Music Maker 05:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hair (musical)

It appears that the South African production was the most important production of hair ever, if one considers the amount of space that we are giving to it. I would support radically trimming this "reviewcruft". Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Verily, it is done. — Music Maker 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Kismetlogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kismetlogo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal!!

This guy is undoing all your edits!: User:209.247.22.164 - See [3] -- Ssilvers 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous -- to spend two hours undoing everything I did. I see that you warned him -- looks like he needs a block. — Music Maker 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I had come to that conclusion by looking at the older edits. -- Ssilvers 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Minnie's Boys, etc.

Can you fix the spacing problem caused by the columnarization? See also Make a Wish. -- Ssilvers 17:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of Minnie's Boys. If you run into any others, just change {{col-2}} to {{col-3}}. It should be the second line under ==Songs==. It really depends on your resolution, and I try to catch any that are screwy. — Music Maker 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there is white space above the columns that looks bad. Please try to eliminate the white space. -- Ssilvers 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't see the ws and there are no line breaks in the code.... I don't know what could be causing it. — Music Maker 17:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It only happens in those short articles where the infobox goes down below the intro. When a plot synopsis is added to those articles, the problem should resolve itself. I suggest that our first musical of the month project be to add plot synopsis to these short articles. We could probably do one a day among us all.... Meanwhile, please see my new message on the project talk page. -- Ssilvers 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually, if the infobox goes beyond the lead and they collide with the songs, I use the col-3, which moves the column of songs over. It might just be how something is set in your browser or in your wp settings.... — Music Maker 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Anton Bohdal

This article DOES exist, I don't know why you dropped it from the 'articles for deletion' page.Ryoung122 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Because after I put in the template for the article I nominated, there was just a red link tagged onto the end of my comment. I kept trying to add it, but all it ever showed was a red link. Then, I searched for the article and nothing came up, so I took it off.

In the future, don't put comments in the middle of other comments, assume good faith, and don't be a dick. — Music Maker 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it could be because you spelled it wrong. — Music Maker 04:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown

Absolutely fantastic additions! Thank you very much! --Avery W. Krouse 20:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anytime.... Gotta love that logo.... — Music Maker 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On Jthegoblinking

I'm willing to think that this is a person who is more likely confused than a simple vandal. Ive put a message on his talk page in an attempt to see if he understands what hes doing wrong, so please hold off on reporting him. --Tao of tyler 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. — Music Maker 07:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet was back today

Editing as 209.247.22.170 today. I reverted all his decolumnarizations, etc. -- Ssilvers 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Groan, grumble, grumble.... — Music Maker 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Showtune

Hello Music Maker 5376. I'm Paul Gilger, author of Showtune. Jerry Herman has asked me to inform you that that he prefers the "scene and song" list on the Showtune page to be left as it was - with the scene numbers in the proper places, as this song-cycle format is essential to understanding the core concept of the show and what makes it unique. Much appreciated. PG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.25.183 (talk • contribs)

Just to let you know, Jerry Herman's opinion as to how the article looks is just as valid as my own. If Jerry Herman has issues with the content of the article, he can contact Jimbo Wales. — Music Maker 5376 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Titanic and ibdb

Since this is an encyclopedia and the stated reference list both actresses, the article should show both of them. I don't know the show that well, but I have a possible explanation. IBDB shows Mindy Cooper as the Dance Captain; maybe she did the role in dance numbers and Pascal Faye played it in non-dance scenes. In any case, it's appropriate to list both actresses, and I have done that. Truthanado 11:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

AWB Edits

Heyo, very cool stuff with the AWB cleanup you're doin. I was wondering if you were able to mark your edit's as minor. I watch almost all of the musical articles and, well, my watchlist is a bit overwhelming right now. I understand if you can't but would be pleased if you could. Cheers! --omtay 38 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a way for me to do that. I just have to be careful because sometimes I do a little more editing than what would be considered minor.... — Music Maker 5376 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Whatever works for you really. It's not all that important :-) --omtay 38 03:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've gotten all of the minor edits out of the way, now I'm using it to do infoboxes, which I don't consider minor. I don't know if I should consider them minor, but I haven't been, and, you know, why change now? But, at any rate, the edits will be coming in more slowly now.... — Music Maker 5376 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy Elliot the Musical

Cast cruft. 'Nuff said. --Ssilvers 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. What the hell is wrong with people? — Music Maker 5376 05:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Musicals

Yes he is! - I would advise digging some up - I'm sure they are there. I'm not sure saying they are colloquialisms is a helpful route either. Johnbod 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. If it plays on the West End, it is a West End musical. I'm not about to waste my time to find a source that says that. If the category gets deleted (a course that he's the only one advocating), fine. — Music Maker 5376 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Cfd! Of course, they may go for Broadway & off-B next. Johnbod 22:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let them. — Music Maker 5376 22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I supported the nom for keeping and renaming the cat. BTW, I disagree that Godspell is not a "rock musical". I don't think we should make the rock musical cat too narrow and exclusive. If the music is contemporary, rather than traditional showtunes like those from the golden age of musicals or earlier ("On the Willows" vs. "People will say we're in love"), then I think it's a "rock musical." I'd appreciate it if you did not delete the cat from these types of works, as I think it is helpful. -- Ssilvers 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

G-spell is NOT rock. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "Pop", perhaps. The only part of G-spell that could be considered rock is the eight measures at the beginning of the Finale. (And it's recapitulation in the middle.) "On the Willows" isn't even rock. It's in 6/4! Theater people have WAY too broad a definition of what is rock. Rock is rock. "We Beseech Thee" is not rock. — Music Maker 5376 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is accompanied by a rock band. I'm gonna have to disagree with you. This is a classic rock musical, and if you don't think so, I think you're just plain wrong, and so does the musicals101 sit and lots of others. Look: http://www.musicals101.com/1970bway1.htm. Gypsy, Finian's Rainbow, Curtains: Not rock musicals. Godspell, Pippin, Evita: Rock musicals. The King of Rock sang "I can't help falling in love with you" and "Love me tender". Styles change. It doesn't have to be Led Zepplin to be rock. -- Ssilvers 03:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going on the fact that I've been in it twice and I've MD'd it twice. And, conversely, I've MD'd Superstar and Tommy. That's rock. Just because the instrumentation happens to be piano, guitar, bass, and drums doesn't make it a rock show. That's the core of every show written after 1968. Pippin, emphatically, is not rock, either. There's no rock at all in Pippin, again, speaking as having MD'd it.

Yes, it does. Have to be Led Zeppelin. Just because Elvis got fat and old and started singing crap doesn't mean that Godspell is a rock musical. It was written in 1972. It would, therefore, have to emulate the rock stylings of 1972 to be considered rock.

Just because musicals101 says it's a rock show doesn't mean crap. If you want a judgment as to whether or not something is rock and roll, you don't ask a musical theatre person. You ask a rock musician. Ask Eric Clapton if he thinks Godspell is rock. — Music Maker 5376 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on opera/operetta articles

Hi. This is a request not to put infoboxes on opera and operetta articles. After exhaustive discussions at the three classical music projects - Opera, Composers and Classical Music - it has been decided not to have infoboxes on articles. We will be grateful for your cooperation. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of when I have? I've only been putting infoboxes on articles that are in musical categories; I haven't been seeking out operas. If they're operas and operettas, then they probably shouldn't be categorized in musical categories. If they're categorized as a musical, they're going to get a musical infobox -- not because I want them to have it, but because I don't invest that much time when I put one on. — Music Maker 5376 23:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He means Der letzte Walzer. I removed the musicals category from the article so you won't run into it again. However, I added our assessment tag to the talk page, so that if you're looking for stubs to expand by clicking on our assessment page, it will come up and you can see that it needs expansion. -- Ssilvers 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Poppins (musical)

Hello, I'm just wondering what the criteria is for categorizing a musical as "British" or "American", as you've just changed the Mary Poppins (musical) article to the "American musical" category. Is it because it is based on the American film? I ask, because the musical's production team is predominantly British, and it premiered in London. Just some clarification, thanks. Annie D 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well.... The whole business of determining the "ethnicity" of a musical is a little subjective. The fact that it's based on an American film wouldn't normally have much to do with it, but the fact that many of the songs are from the movie has a little to do with it. The deciding factor, for me, is that it's Disney. Can't get much more American than Disney.

There aren't hard-and-fast rules. In the case of a traditional musical, where two or three guys get together and write write something original, it's fairly easy to determine the ethnicity. When it's a musical by a company, sort of where the producers decide on the property and then choose the creative team, it gets a little hairy. In the latter case, I think that if it's an American company, that makes it an American musical. And, unfortunately, that's a lot of musicals, given the current Disnification of Broadway. — Music Maker 5376 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can it be categorized as BOTH an American musical and a British musical? With the book by a Brit and an initial West End production, but a score by Americans and an American producer it's certainly arguable. If it can't be both, since we are often accused of being US-centric, I like to decide the close questions in favor of the non-American designation.... -- Ssilvers 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it cannot be both. That would place it in Category:Musicals by nationality twice. It would negate the entire concept of having categories by nationality. Which, frankly, because of this very reason, I think we should scrap this whole useless endeavor. Because of systemic bias. Because it's a judgment call. How can this possibly help anyone with any research? Frankly, this is just stupid. I'm doing it, but I think it's moronic. It's just categorization for categorization sake.

Furthermore, Category:Walt Disney Theatrical is a subcat of Category:American musicals. Mary Poppins (musical) shouldn't be in either category, and I'll remove it later. — Music Maker 5376 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of a really good reason for categorization of musicals by nationality either. Maybe we should discuss it on the Project's main talk page? On the other hand, maybe it would be more trouble than it's worth to eliminate it. I don't feel strongly. -- Ssilvers 12:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image speedy

Unfortunately the image page did not fully specify the source of the image only saying 'Press release for "All Access" DVD release, 2003' which isn't accurate enough (Who issued the release? Was the image obtained from a third party? etc) so that the proper copyright status/holder can be determined. The image had been tagged since 17 July and the uploader was notified, but unfortunately there is no requirement for the image uses to be tagged before deletion. The uploader hasn't been active for over a year and has no email specified so it is unlikely that the source can be obtained from them. The best thing to do would be to try and find the image again (the original text may help you) and upload the properly sourced image. Also as a non-free image, you would need to ensure the image meets the non-free content criteria and that a non-free media rationale is specified for it. Hope that helps, matt br 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another user tagged the image as having no source and notified the uploader. Images tagged for more than seven days may be speedily deleted at any time under criterion I4, and there is no requirement for any other notification, apart from tagging the image description page, or checking of the activity of the uploader (I only did this so that you knew that this was a dead-end). This copy of the image needs deleting, and it is unfortunate that a replacement has not been found before the deletion, but that should not cause the deletion of a section in an article. The event depicted should be notable for the significance of the event itself, not whether there is an image to show this event. The use of a fair use picture should include a critical commentary including the importance and significance of the event and if the text can be removed from the article just because there is no picture, then the event should probably not be included in the article whether there is a picture or not. Good luck with finding another image, matt br 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If the event in the picture didn't/doesn't require any further explanation in the text then it probably shouldn't be included as it is clearly not that a significant event. If the meeting was a pivotal point in the career of the band (eg this meeting was the start of a long relationship in which King became a co-writer with the group leading to a number of hit singles) then it probably should be included. There is more on the inclusion on non-free content at on the site at Wikipedia:Non-free content. matt br 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi! Thanks for your message!
I would love to be adopted by you, as musical theatre is the thing I am probably most interested in contributing to. The project looks very interesting.
So, how does this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springreturning (talk • contribs)

Thanks for writing back so quickly and all the info and suggestions! I will check out the MT project when I have a sec. I actually have a fair amount of html experience so that part shouldn't be too challenging other than learning the wikipedia-specific tags. Feel free to check out my contributions so far and see anything that could use work. Talk to you soon, thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springreturning (talk • contribs)

Address in Theatre Infobox

Heads-up: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats#Infobox Theatre. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)