Talk:Kismet (musical)

Kismet (musical) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre

Iraq Low‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synopsis

Tzactor has written a synopsis going into excruciating, and probably unnecessary, detail. Whatever one thinks of it all, it must be acknowledged that he has gone to considerable effort.

I have fixed a number of errors in spelling, capitalization, grammar, and heading layout. I have mostly refrained from changing his wording except in cases of flagrant redundancy.

B00P 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timbuktu's settings "minimal"? Geoffrey Holder's costumes made it among the most lavish and opulent things I have ever seen put on a stage. The only "minimal" thing about it were some of the men's costumes, which caused quite a few tongues to wag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.32.85 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Timbuktu is made of mud"???? This was a big, lush, romantic, *fictional* Broadway musical, not an archaeological dig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.51.11 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borodin sources

This article would benefit from details about which specific Borodin themes or tunes were used as source material for the music in Kismet, for example see "Stranger in Paradise".--Design (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've added the sources. --Design (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Position of content on original Australian production

User:Ssilvers in particular, while this isn't a major issue, I question why the content on the original Australian production was moved down to the revivals section. It wasn't a revival; it was an Australian replica based on the Broadway original, just like the West End replica production. It is part of demonstrating the impact and influence of the original Broadway production. Boneymau (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boneymau. Was this the same director, designers, etc? The article that you cited does not mention that it is the same production, or even a production "based" on the Broadway production. If it was, then I agree that it is part of the "original" production, and we should move it back up with the West End production and state that Marre, Cole and Ayers reproduced their production in Australia, together with a source that names the production team. In any case, we should name the director, if you have that info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll research it and make appropriate edits with references. The usual practice in those days were that Australian productions were licensed by Australian producers from the Broadway (or West End) originals. Someone associated with the Broadway production (like a stage manager) would come out to rehearse it, and the Broadway design and choreography would be copied/used. (Which is not particularly different to how licensed international productions work today in many cases.) Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking for a reference(s) re: the creative team for the Australian production. I don't think that what you're describing is the same as the West End production, which was basically a transfer of the Broadway production -- part of the same production, except in a new theatre; we also usually include the original national tour of an original production under the original production section. But what you are describing, I think, would better be considered a "subsequent production" (or "revival", if you prefer), that is "based" on the Broadway production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting to more general issues than just Kismet, which is good to draw out for other articles of this period. Can you describe a bit more what you see as the difference? A 'transfer' West End production may not have the same producers (or presenters really) as a Broadway production. (Let's leave aside the issue of the Broadway lead cast opening Kismet). The original director might not necessarily be in the rehearsal room for a US national tour. Boneymau (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a "transfer" to mean a production in a different theatre that has the same director and (at least some of) the same producers and follows either immediately (or very soon) after the original production ends, or even begins during the original production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Kismet I looked it up, which I should have done in the first place. The Australian production appeared to be a new one with different designs, etc. I assumed it was a replica production, like the big name J.C. Williamson's productions in Australian in mid-20th century were. This was a different producer, Garnet H. Carroll. So the current position is fine.Boneymau (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you add the name of the director of the production, together with your source? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There are perhaps better sources in The Age newspaper, but it's not freely online. Boneymau (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A good addition to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Role list

The content of this article differs from typical opera article in one aspect. The opera articles include a rather useful role table. It would be nice to at least have a listing of the role names. More information would be better.Rdmoore6 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

I added one sentence to the background section that added some links to articles that might interest readers of this article who want to do further background reading. This is what makes wikis great! I don't believe this to be excessive detail. It was reverted here: [1]. I have restored it because I think it is relevant background and should be included the background section. Dartslilly (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your addition. It gives no information of particular interest regarding the conception, genesis or production of Kismet; for a general discussion of musicals of the golden age, readers should see the musical theatre article. More importantly, you are now WP:EDIT WARring by reverting to your preferred version. You should be aware that editors can be blocked from Wikipedia for Edit warring. I strongly suggest that you revert your last edit unless and until you can build a WP:CONSENSUS to add this information to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I think it is of value for readers. Now you are making threats. I will not respond. I think it would be better to add content then to remove content added by others for no reason. I have looked at the article history and you seem to be very involved with this article. Please explain what your connection to this article is. Dartslilly (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My "connection" is the same as yours: I have contributed to this article; I have also contributed to hundreds of other musical theatre and operetta articles on Wikipedia. You are suggesting that every Wikipedia article about a musical should contain a general sentence stating what other musicals were written around the same time. That sort of general information is tangential to the subject. Useful background information would deal with why the musical was adapted from the source material, and how the adaptation was accompllshed. General information about musicals of the 1950s or golden age is already better handled by the musical theatre article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make good points but I also believe a wiki's value to readers is enhanced by linking to relevant articles. I will take some time to consider how these links can best be included in the article in a way that is relevant and on-topic. Maybe additional sources can be found that will be helpful. Thank you for sharing your input! Dartslilly (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other users here may agree with you and add to this discussion. If so, you can form a WP:CONSENSUS to add the general information you seek to add. For future reference, please see the WP:BRD procedure, which suggests the following way to proceed in the event of a disagreement: (1) You "Boldly" add or change something in an article. (2) Another editor disagrees with you and Reverts. (3) Then you start a Discussion on the Talk page to try to gain a new consensus. You do not revert to your preferred version until there is a consensus to do so. As I mentioned elsewhere, I completely agree that Kismet could use more Background information, but only information that is more directly relevant to this musical. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Barbara production

Hi Ssilvers. The question is raised whether the 2021 production in Santa Barbara is notable. The focus of the new production was to create a culturally aware remake of the musical, and the participation of Broadway vets Lonny Price, Ken Davenport and Nir Kabaretti, a national casting call [2] as well as the script review by NYU's Naila Al Atrash demonstrate it's not a community theatre production. Lemme know if this requires more back-up or how to rewrite to spotlight why it merits inclusion. Thx! Emptyeditor (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the standard. In the Productions section, each listed production should be a production at a major venue (like an established, blue-linked regional theatre) directed by a blue-linked director, with most of its major stars being blue-linked persons. Or, if the production runs for, say, more than a year, then it can be re-evaluated then. A show like Kismet has had dozens or even hundreds of professional productions around the world, so of course we do not list all professional productions. "Culturally aware" revivals are the norm now in professional theatre, not the exception. Or if it is, for example a the winner of a Tony Award for best musical, or receives a lot of Tony Award or Olivier Award nominations, which a regional production would not. I think it is extremely likely that this production is not of encyclopedic importance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]