Jump to content

Talk:Musical: The Prince of Tennis

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

Keep This Page!

[edit]

This page needs work but it does not need deletion. The Prince of Tennis Musicals helped to launch the careers of many Japanese actors and singers. Also it seems to me to be the only place that gives a detail list just of who has been involved in the Musicals over the years and a starting source for those that may be interested but however do not speak Japanese as all official sites will be in that language.--MissEzri (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Match against Hyoutei

[edit]

Why are the 4th and 5th generation casts featured for this musical? Plus, is Aiba actually coming back with this next cast? Jedi Striker, 11 October 2008, 20:32 (UTC)

The recent musicals (Imperial Presence Hyotei and Treasure Match Shitenhouji) have both been double-cast, because they had a much larger number of shows than one cast could manage. Aiba did come back for a few of the shows, like Kato Kazuki and Saito Takumi did. --Adevish (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic lists

[edit]

Simply replacing bullet-point delimited lists with comma-delimited ones does not make the lists any more encyclopaedic. This is aggravated by the fact that they are all cited to WP:PRIMARY sources. Use of such sources should be supplemental, not predominate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not inherently bad. For things such as cast lists, primary sources are likely the best source for the information as they will be the most authoritative as far as basic facts. The only time primary sources are not acceptable is to establish notability. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Predominate use of primary sources is bad -- "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Likewise cast lists (or lists of performances) should not predominate, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Look at Cats (musical), which only lists 3 "Notable casts" (Original London, Original Broadway & Film) for a musical that is far more notable, and an article that has far more secondary-source information than this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the length and number of cast lists in this article. And please don't quote policies ad guidelines at me; this isn't a wikilawyering fight, and I'm plenty-well versed in them already. I also agree that there need to be more secondary and tertiary sources used in the article. I'm not sure why you keep beating that dead horse as no one is arguing against that. The only thing being argued is whether primary sources can be used at all, and you seem to be stating over and over that they can't. That's just plain wrong. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Don't twist what I said (I never said that primary sources are inherently bad, just that their use should not predominate) and I won't feel obliged to hammer the point home by quoting policy.
  2. This "horse" is most certainly still live because all that is being done appears to be simply reformatting these lists, not reducing them.
  3. "The only thing being argued is whether primary sources can be used at all..." WP:Complete bollocks! At least 24 of the 29 references are to tennimu.com. What is "being argued is whether primary sources can be used" ALMOST EVERYWHERE!
  4. "...and you seem to be stating over and over that they can't." Kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments! This is a violation of WP:TALK. I never said that primary sources can't be used at all.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can compare this musical series to a musical like cats. As far as I know Cats is one musical telling the full story. It has been performed in many countries and has casts for every country. The Musical production of the Prince of Tennis though, consists of multiple musicals. Every musical is a continuation of the previous. And since new characters are introduced in each musical, the main cast changes every musical. There are possibilities to distinguish different "groups" between the cast members, but since cast members are being replaced multiple times (especially in the beginning of the series), because of personal circumstances and the double casting at the end of the series, it would be really hard to shorten things down. In various musical cast listings it would be possible to distinguish some "side characters", but removing those from the lists would just save you a couple of sentences and I don't see any use in doing that. (Also, because it would mean giving incomplete information)--Epeir Riku (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • New major characters ("main parts") every musical? That seems unlikely for continuity reasons. And it also does not seem to be supported by the cast lists, which appear to have the same half dozen or more main characters listed each time. But regardless of how it gets done, this endless list needs radical pruning. It is grossly unencyclopaedic WP:FANCRUFT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we can say that every musical features the Seigaku cast, who remains (almost) the same for about 5 musicals before there's a cast change. But besides the Seigaku cast each musical features another set of cast members = the opposing tennis team. These teams and consequently the the actors change every musical. Some cast members do return though in later musical and play a major or minor role, just depending on the screenplay. As I said, removing these few minor characters wouldn't make much of a difference for the length. (And what you don't see as essential information for this article, is essential information from my point of view)--Epeir Riku (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry to disappoint you, but all of the characters/actors referred to in the cast list are also named in the list of characters. So, I don't see a point in that argument of yours. (In case you can't find some names, some people romanize their names differently than other people. For example writing 'oh' in stead of 'ou'.--Epeir Riku (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I not that the new table someone made for the 1st five musicals is just complete rubbish. Saying Echizen, Tezuka, Ooishi and Fuji are the main characters is nonsense! If you talk abut main characters. you have at least 9 of them and that's the whole team of Seigaku! Not just a few of them! So, please, if you don't have knowledge of the series, don't go ahead an change things on your own! (Yes, I am pissed off!)--Epeir Riku (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Hrafn you just show you're lack of knowledge about Tenimyu, or Prince of Tennis in general. Technically, the main character is the series in Echizen Ryoma, however other characters do have a major role and for certain story arcs have a bigger role than Echizen. Just because Echizen, Tezuka, Ooshi and Fuji are the first 4 characters listed on the Prince of Tennis character page by no means they are the main characters. In discussions in the fan community, what they like so much about this page in that it lists in full the casts, and what performances they took part in. Yes, it is a list, but it is vital information. You are leaving out huge chunks of information by limiting a cast list of around 20 to only 4 when they may not even have a central role in that musical.(This is why I stopped trying to do pages.... Yes, the page needed work, but if you do not know anything about the subject, why are you editing the page?) --MissEzri (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. May I note that the 'Musical Performance Listing' section, which is the vast bulk of the article, is endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless WP:FANCRUFT!
  2. May I note that, per {{over detailed}}, this article "contain[s] an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience" and that "remov[ing] excessive ... lists" is necessary.
  3. May I note that in spite of these problems receiving considerable attention at the AfD, no attempt had been made, by those with "knowledge about Tenimyu" to remedy this problem (in fact they continued to add to it).
  4. May I note that I did not say that "Echizen, Tezuka, Ooishi and Fuji are the main characters" -- I merely chose four, that included the only two to have their own articles, plus a couple more, to demonstrate how such a table would look. May I further point out that claiming that nine characters all have indistinguishable prominence is itself likely to be "nonsense".
  5. May I note that leaving out "huge chunks of [EXCESSIVE] information" is the whole point! See wikt:summary if the concept is new to you.

If you want to suggest a superior summarisation schema, you are welcome to do so. Alternatively, we could take the advice of one of the AfD commenters and WP:STUBify the article, if you dislike my summarisation intensely, and are unwilling to suggest an alternative one. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be hard to understand to you, who've clearly no knowledge about this series, but there are actually 9 main characters, if there aren't even more of them, as quite some characters return later in the shows to take up important roles in the story line. Then:
  1. What's the problem with an ENDLESS list if it's actually well organised? Besides that, to you it look probably much more ENDLESS than it looks to people who actually have knowledge about the series. Summarizing everything in a table would also end in an ENDLESS list and probably much more un-organised, because it;s impossible to fit all the information in a table. If you really intend to judge this article and it' content, please make yourself known with a topic. Btw. if the article had more "other" but the performance listing wit cast, would you still be nagging about it? Or would a long part on reviews etc. shut you up? (btw. that sounds more harsh than I mean it)
  2. I looked up the word "encyclopaedic" once more today in my dictionary and it gave me two meaning: 1) connected with encyclopaedias or the type of information found in them, 2) containing COMPLETE information about a particular subject. Please tell me, why I need to give INCOMPLETE information, because you think it's too much, while encyclopaedic information is supposed to be COMPLETE. Then... won't any article just be of interest to a select amount of people. So that's no reason to remove information. Better delete wikipedia in that case. Because, each page is only viewed by people who are actually interested in it. (because, that's the reason you look a page up, right?)
  3. As I told you multiple times, I am working on stuff! But I ALSO HAVE A LIFE BESIDES THE INTERNET! SO STOP NAGGING ALREADY!
  4. Maybe you should've consulted us people who have knowledge about the subject first before you went ahead and just made a table? I appreciate you want to help, but you just screw things up like this. (but I guess you already knew that from our reactions)
  5. Yes, that's the meaning of a summery, but what's the problem with a summery...? This is already a summery... Do you want me to write the complete story that'll seriously become some huge article ^-^

WP:STUBifying the article sounds stupid, according to the page it should be used for articles that are too short, but according to you, this one is actually too long. What the hell do yoyu actually want? ^-^ I just means to say, I don't think it'll actually do anything. It's just another annoying tag on the page that's doesn't motivate to work on it. (at least, in my case) --Epeir Riku (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. "The problem with an ENDLESS list" is that it violates policy: WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" & WP:SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It is also that the "excessive amount of intricate detail ... may only interest a specific audience" -- and Wikipedia is meant to be a general encyclopaedia, not a Fanpaedia.
  2. See WP:NOT.
  3. So you have time to add to this pile of fancruft, and to argue at considerable length against its reduction, but none to discuss how it may be summarised into a more encyclopaedic form?
  4. I did "consult" -- all I got in return was stonewalling on the issue of summarisation. So I "went ahead and just made a table" -- as nobody could be bothered suggesting an alternative.
  5. The problem with this (pre-existing) 'summary' is that it is a very very long summary that "may only interest a specific audience" and that violates Wikipedia policy. A soccer fan might equally argue that a listing of every goal their favourite team scored is a 'summary' of the games they played in, but it would still be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS.
  6. Stubifying is fairly standard practice in dealing with a topic that is (i) sufficiently notable to pass an AfD, but (ii) is mostly problematical content. It is thus an appropriate solution for excessive detail for which an appropriate summary cannot be found.
  7. What I would like is:
    1. The 'Musical Performance Listing' reduced to a brief summary (e.g. 10-20% of its current size).
    2. A predominance of WP:SECONDARY source content, particularly content that "often mak[es] analytic or evaluative claims about" the topic.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wondering something. It's clear you have something against the "cast list" in this article, but if I would create a whole new page/article with the title "List of Tenimyu Performances" (or anything the like) would it be fine to paste down the whole performance+cast list that can be found on this page now? (To me it seems like that should be allowed at least...)
    Then, summarising all the information shorter is gonna be hard and attempt you did is a big failure to me. I'll try something else, but I'll need at least a few weeks to work things out. (So please bear with the long list for now) -- And a last thing, please check the reference list. It has more secondary sources than you seem to notice. (I count 18, some are used multiple times... against 24 primary sources... so that's about even)--Epeir Riku (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No -- I have "something against" an article that almost nothing but 20+ cast lists. And your hypothetical new article would differ from the existing one, how? And would pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, how? And this steaming pile of WP:FANCRUFT "is a big failure to me." 18/42 is hardly a 'greater extent'. And given that these sources are mostly used only for cast lists, its questionable to what extent they count as 'secondary' (a simple republication of primary source information by a third party source doesn't really count as secondary source). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still don't get the point of "I've got NO TIME to write some large piece of information that suits YOUR taste. You just remove everything I write, because you think it's not verifiable. The part that actually had information in it was removed because of that. And please don't judge the articles in the references as sources that just republicate the primary source information. They do, but they also provide a lot of "review". But once again, those articles are in Japanese, I'll need time to read those! And the new article would differ because it's just a listing. Since a list of characters is allowed, why wouldn't an list of the musical performances be allowed? It'll have much more detailed information on each individual musical, than I am allowed to give in this article apparently.--Epeir Riku (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I get it -- you've "got NO TIME" to even discuss how the material can be summarised -- but 'LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME' to add more fancruft and 'LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME' to defend the current steaming pile of fancruft. I "just remove everything [you] write", because you do NOTHING but add more fancruft. Instead of this excessive material, why don't you add some of these reviews you claim exist instead -- if they're coming from the same sources you're citing anyway? A list of characters is informative, as is a summarised list of performances (which is what my table is attempting to create) -- a list of every single cast list -- is E_X_C_E_S_S_I_V_E and only of interest to a specific audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • JUST SHUT UP ALREADY OKAY! Now who is talking about "good will" policies on Wiki! There's no way I would even want to discuss anything anymore with you, because the only thing you tell me is that everything on this page sucks anyway, because it's just fancruft and just interesting to a particular audience! THAT'S EVERYTHING ON WIKI! And as I told you already about 20 TIMES I do have the review articles and yes, they actually do exist even though it might be hard to admit, BUT they are Japanese and it takes time! Time I don't have, because I waste every minute I have shouting at you because you think to know something about a topic you have no clue about! Just accept the fact that I am the expert at this topic, while I am just a starter at Wiki!--Epeir Riku (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

Per discussion on AfD, this article lacks anything on the reception, critical analysis or reviews of the show. This is the sort of WP:SECONDARY-sourced content that is meant to demonstrate a topic's notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know! And I've found plenty of secondary sources to write a critical analysis or a review (they have been added to the reference lists already btw, as they also contained some information already in the article. But as they are articles in magazines you might not have access to them(as they aren't online and in Japanese)) Any way, I'd love to write anything that looks like review, but I simply don't have time to do that right away. Especially since university just gave me a load of homework to deal with before upcoming Friday. Just be patient and it'll appear eventually. --Epeir Riku (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research removed from article

[edit]

Can be returned to article if sources (preferably third party) can be found. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Performances

[edit]

{{original research|section|date=January 2011}} By watching the musicals, one notices the musical production distinguishes between two kinds of performances:

  1. plot/story musicals : these musicals follow the plot of the manga story[1]
  2. live concerts (so-called Dream Live’s): these are alternative performances featuring previous songs and parody-skits[2]

In addition to the three main types of performances, some musicals are classified as re-runs (a re-run of a previous musical. This only happened thrice, with the First musical, the Fudomine arc and the first Hyoutei arc.) and so-called “graduation shows” (see below).

References

  1. ^ Aki Kuramitsu, 2010, Myuujikaru "Tenisu no Oujisama" sen-kouen Playback, Good Come, vol. 14, pp 48-49
  2. ^ Yumiko Maeshima, 2010, Dream Live Play Back On Six, Hero Vision, vol.36, pp 54-57

Graduation System

[edit]

Through watching the musicals, one discovers that one of the productions main characteristics is the existence of these graduation shows (a name due to the school setting of the musicals). This is the last show performed by the main cast (Seigaku cast), before the next cast takes over. This doesn’t mean though each and every member is forced to leave the show. Due to personal circumstances and contracts, an actor might stay longer or are asked to come back later in the production.※ Compared to normal shows, the graduation show leaves space for all graduating actors to give their final greetings to the audience, before they leave the production.These graduations shows are held about every 1.5 years (after 5 musicals).

  • ※1: In Side Fudomine, Kotaro Yanagi didn’t graduate alongside the other first cast members, due to his involvement into an accident less than two weeks before the première of Remarkble Match Fudomine, that caused an early withdrawal out the musicals early. He returned later on and graduated together with the 2nd Seigaku cast.
  • ※2: Yuya Endo didn’t graduate together with the first cast members either, because he only joined the crew during Dream Live 1st. He graduated on his own during Dream Live 2nd.
  • ※3: Hiroki Aiba didn’t graduate alongside the 2nd cast, but stayed another term and graduated alongside the 3rd cast members during Absolute King Rikkaidai ~2nd Service.
  • ※4: Kousuke Kujirai returned in Advancement Match Rokkaku once more, as the actor originally casted for the role (Takahiro Tasaki) withdrew from the show.
  • ※5: Tomo Yanagishita didn’t graduate alongside the 3rd cast and the role of Kaidou was double casted .Tomo graduated on his own during Dream Live 5th.
  • ※6: Hiroki Aiba returned for the run of the Imperial Presence Hyoutei to play the role of Shusuke Fuji once more, as there they couldn’t find an actor to fill in the role for the 5th cast.
  • ※7: All first cast members returned for Dream Live 7th, to portray their characters once more, alongside the 5th cast members.

[End of removed WP:OR HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC) ][reply]

  • Would you mind to explain me, why I can't write down information gathered by watching the musical series? The fact that I gathered the information myself doesn't have to mean it isn't true, right? Or should I in this case just refer to each and every musical in which you can find the information? For some things it might be able to find third party sources (all in Japanese though), but for others that's nearly impossible... (which doesn't mean any reference doesn't exist, but merely means I don't have the possibilities to find it)--Epeir Riku (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is your opinion, unless you can find a source that said that(either a reviewer, or the show themselves can say that somewhere). "Through watching the musicals, one discovers that one of the productions main characteristics is the existence of these graduation shows (a name due to the school setting of the musicals)." The rest isn't original research, just mentioning when someone left the show and for what reason. You can add some references to where this was mentioned at though. Dream Focus 08:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) On "the rest", I would suspect that there would be quite a bit of WP:Synthesis here -- both in terms of the "didn't graduates" & in making inferences. (ii) Unless third party sources have commented on the 'Graduation System', it would probably be inappropriate (and WP:UNDUE) to add further primary-sourced information on the subject (given the already excessive preponderance of such material in this article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No WP:Synthesis in here for as far as I can see. These are just facts (and facts aren't forbidden) All of this is reported in official news about the musical, but as a lot of those news articles were released about 4-7 years ago in articles that aren't available online. Even though I did read them and remembered the information, I didn't write down all sources. Yeah, and for some claims I was still looking for sources, but I didn't really get time, as the information was already removed... my motivation to fix this page is dropping down more and more, as people keep complaining about things they don't have any knowledge about!--Epeir Riku (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. If someone has a problem with the information being valid, they should just put a citation needed tag on it, and give you time to find them. Also if the person who nominated the article for deletion, and one of the few people in the AFD which said delete against an overwhelming keep vote, is the one now destroying parts of it, that does seem a bit inappropriate. Find a source for one thing, hit undo next to their edits, or edit an older version and copy paste that over to the newest version. Dream Focus 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Dream Focus for that rather blatant violation of WP:AGF. It's always so wonderful to be the target of the hyperbolic accusations of reflexive partisans. It is your language that is "inappropriate". If Epeir Riku can find third party WP:RSs for this material, then they're welcome to restore it to the extent that the source supports the material (non-third party RS would be less welcome, but I wouldn't make an issue out of it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to know you do this with a good intention, but you aren't helping out at all. You are just telling what we are doing wrong, while you don't have any knowlewdge about the subject. It'll be really hard to talk things over, if you won't even understand what I am talking about. All I hear from you is "Too long", "Too much information", "No references", "No review"... that's really annoying since you don't seem to notice this is something from the Japanese culture. About every source about it is in Japanese. I might know the language, but I am not near fluent at all. It takes me hours and hours to read just a text of two pages. Besides that I need to study, need to write a thesis, prepare for all my courses and try to maintain some personal life as well. You can't expect me to rewrite a complete article to your wishes in just a few weeks. It'll take me about 6 months at least most likely, considering the amount of time I have available at the moment. And because of all the nitpicking from you side, I am actually the only people who still want to put an effort in fixing this page. (And well, most people also have their own things to deal with or don't know Japanese, so it'll be a lost case anyway) Could you please try to understand this side of the story too--Epeir Riku (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Tenimyu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Please initiate a new move request if you would like to move the article to a different title. Dekimasuよ! 19:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenimyu → Musical: The Prince of Tennis – "Tenimyu" is a nickname (and not even the official romanization, which is "Tennimu"). The full name of the musical is The Prince of Tennis, much like how "Seramyu" is a nickname for the Sailor Moon musicals. lullabying (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Screenplay" for a stage performance?

[edit]

Why are the writers of a live stage musical credited as "screenplay"? Unless they're writers only of a film or video projection shown as part of the show (which does not seem to be the case when they're the only writers credited other than the the creator of the original comic), there must be some mistranslation. Writers of the words of a musical are generally credited either with "lyrics" (for the sung lyrics) or "book" (for spoken dialogue, dramatic structure and stage directions). See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Musical_theatre#Book_musicals 2A00:23C7:5489:3100:F590:D93A:20F9:6C35 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Musical:_The_Prince_of_Tennis&oldid=1202979514"