Talk:List of musicals filmed live on stage

Cleanup: Details?

Should things be listed by recording date, or release date? Since many recordings have multiple releases, recording date seems to make the most sense. Should a note be added to say that?

A lot of notable musicals from around the world (especially from Asia) don't have English pages yet. Please don't assume that something isn't notable without investigating. EncreViolette (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

If they're notable, feel free to add reliable sources verifying this. Many of the musicals in this list I can't find significant coverage on DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Which ones, and where are you looking? A lot of them are not in English and have never been in English. I am trying to create pages for ones with sources in Japanese. I have submitted a draft page for Frankenstein (Korean) for review. There are a lot of other Korean ones that I can't research because I don't speak Korean, but I'm working on it for Japanese ones.

If it links to the source material, and the source material is notable enough to get a page, but no one has gotten around to creating a page for the musical itself, but the source material's page has sources for the musical, is that enough to at least keep it on this list? EncreViolette (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of the Takarazuka Revue productions don't have significant coverage or apparent notability as productions themselves, beyond the inherent notability of the troupe itself.

Beyond that:

Nunsense 2 and 3 and Nunsensations

Mozart! (Two casts) (Japan)

The MeshugaNutcracker!

Da Ponte

Isabeau

Le Miracle de Montparnasse

and those are just on a cursory glance DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I just added sources for Miracle de Montparnasse. Isabeau is giving me surprising difficulty finding sources, but it's massively popular, so I should be able to find them and make a page soon.

Which Mozart are you saying isn't notable? If the show has a page, why would a proshot not be notable? Do we need a source that it was filmed that year with two casts? Should more details about the casts be added? On this page or on the show's page?

Can proshot casts be added to the work's main page? How many proshots is too many for a proshot cast to be worth noting on the work's page?

The others, I don't know. I just know the Japanese ones. Trying to get someone who speaks Korean to add information and sources for Korean ones. EncreViolette (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The source you added for Miracle de Montparnasse is a primary source. Them having a website doesn't make them notable, it has to be covered significantly by a secondary source

The scope of this list is too broad to add every proshot musical, so per WP:LSC we should limit it to notable proshots, or at the very least notable productions DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I added two more sources after that.

If you're not trying to list every proshot, then what's the point? Then why not just cut the list?

> "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever."

(Excuse me if my quote syntax is wrong)

The example that's given for artworks not notable enough to be on a list is "List of Norwegian musicians should not include every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper". A production in Tokyo by a major producer, with notable cast and staff, that gets a proshot, is a few steps up from a garage band. Miracle de Montparnasse is not necessarily notable enough to have a page yet (if it has a revival, then maybe). But it seems more than enough for this list. EncreViolette (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Another question: Should the producers be noted for all of them? I notice that a lot were. Should I note Toho for their productions? From what I can tell, there isn't a separate producer for their proshots. EncreViolette (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, another question. The actual disc is not an independent source to prove notability, but is it enough of a source that the content of the disc exists?

So, I'm not trying to prove that Mozart! is notable, that's been proven. I'm trying to prove that in x year, Toho released two discs, one with Actor A as Mozart, and one with Actor B as Mozart. Is the disc itself okay to cite as a source? Or a page about the disc, like a listing? EncreViolette (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A page from a reliable secondary source would be good - Any articles from a major source would be ideal DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. So which year's Mozart needs its own source? All of them? EncreViolette (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

TLDR. Can we clear out any of the non-notable new additions in, say, the next week? Wolfdog (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Every entry on a list does not have to be notable (WP:NLIST). From WP:CSC, out of the three selection criteria, the last (everything that is verifiably a member of the group) seems to fit this the most. It gives 32kb as an upper size limit for this sort of list, and this list is currently 12.52kb.

If you want to say that this should be a list of only notable professionally recorded stage musicals -- why? And what does that mean? Does the recording itself have to be notable (i.e. is the 24th professional recording of Elisabeth no longer notable because there are already so many)? Or does it have to be a recording of a work that's considered notable (in which case notability sources can be provided here if the work in question doesn't have a page yet)?

Note that pages aren't for individual recordings, they're for works. Someone thought that recordings was a worthwhile subject for an article, separate from that of works. This could be a resource to help people find these recordings, a resource to let people know what's out there. EncreViolette (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is fair. I'm not trying to set any impossibly high standards. I think notability is still a general policy we follow (not sure how else to answer your question a list of only notable professionally recorded stage musicals -- why? It's just something we do here on WP.) I think the recording itself has to be notable (but maybe you can make a case for the broader work). Otherwise, how are we defining everything that is verifiably a member of the group? Don't we still need reliable sources to verify what is verifiably a member of a group? Wolfdog (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source can verify that a professional recording of a musical exists.

I have been told that if it is not a big enough production, or if it has not been reviewed by enough newspapers, it isn't notable.

L'art Reste, for example, is a musical that has been performed in Korea and Japan, with a cast of four actors. I have been told that even if it has been performed repeatedly and in two countries (three, apparently there's been some workshop with it in the US), with cast and creatives notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, that that doesn't necessarily mean it's notable. That even if a show ran on Broadway or the West End, if it was for less than a year, and all revivals have been regional, it's not notable, even if the cast and creatives are notable and it got reviewed in a newspaper of record.

I'm not here to contend that it's notable, just that the production announced today that they're making a DVD. A commercially released DVD of a professional musical theatre production filmed live on stage. It is verifiably a member of that group even if some would say it's too small to be notable.

The disc itself is a source that the recording verifiably exists. It's not a source for notability about itself, because it is itself.

(Just a note: Takarazuka recordings listed here are a small fraction of their output). EncreViolette (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

So I'm not sure what we're getting to here. I think notability ought to be the criterion over the existence of a DVD, which I nevertheless fully believe exists. WP:CSC #3 still says The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources, right? Wolfdog (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. There are reliable sources that the recording exists.

That is not notability. That's verifiability.

Notability is "it's famous enough to have its own page".

It seems that the criteria of this list should include professional recordings of musicals filmed live on stage, even if the musical has not been accepted as famous enough to have its own page. EncreViolette (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, my WP vernacular is flawed! I should have written Can we clear out any of the non-reliably sourced new additions in, say, the next week? (My personal example of this is looking at the RRR page only to see that, even at that page, there is no mention of any live-stage proshot. A few others I started to look into also currently lack those kind of sourcing, even at their own main-work page. Wolfdog (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

alright, tell me which ones and I'll get sources for them. Will get ones for the RRR one now. EncreViolette (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Right now I'm focused on most of the Takarazuka Revue productions. Perhaps you can find a single source outside of Takarazuka that confirms their numerous filmed recordings? For example, simply piping The Tempest to the Shakespeare play confirms little about the existence of a (Japanese-language?) musical adaptation that, additionally, has been filmed live. Wolfdog (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Outside of Takarazuka? Google gives me a bunch of listings to buy the DVD, but no news articles, for most Takarazuka things. I'm looking, though. I'll keep looking. It is 2:30 AM here, but I'll look a bit more. EncreViolette (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ha, there's no rush. Again, I think non-reliable sources should ultimately be removed, perhaps in a week's time or so. (Again, sorry for saying non-notable earlier.) Wolfdog (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I linked a source to the Takarazuka TV channel. This is what my question is, about verifiability and reliability. A source that's too close to the subject is non-reliable, but is that absolute? A press release about a DVD, or a sales page from a third-party seller (like CD Japan, if you want something other than Amazon), is partial -- they want you to buy the disc. But at the same time, they're not going to lie about it. Lying about the content of the DVD is opposite their own interest, in that case.

I feel like a list of productions on the page for Takarazuka, and a note that they film everything, wouldn't be out of place. EncreViolette (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As to your final sentence, yeah, perhaps that would be better. We don't even have a main page for Takarazuka. It seems like this one production company has leapt out of the blue, so I suppose I'm simply questioning it due to a kind of recency bias. Right, I do feel that if we can't find source further from the subject, then it isn't very reliably sourceable. (Admittedly, this is all in the context of an English-language encyclopedia that is surely biased towards more English-speaking countries and culture.) Wolfdog (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a page for Takarazuka Revue. I only linked it from the first recording of theirs in each decade, should I have linked every time? EncreViolette (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, strike that comment then. Not doing well today. Wolfdog (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

They're a pretty big organization, and they're known for filming everything since about the 1970's. If any third-party, non-retail source comes up for one of their things, I'll be sure to link it here, but since most items on the list have no source at all, a proof that it exists is something. EncreViolette (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the background info on this and doing some searching. Much appreciated! Wolfdog (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I do think listing by recording date is better than release date. (If there's only one of each date, it's easy enough to provide both, if they differ.) Wolfdog (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)