Talk:The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (play)

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (play) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time won a record-tying seven Olivier Awards at the 2013 Laurence Olivier Awards on April 28, 2013?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.

Wikipedia

2 problems

I've done as much work on this article as I can stand. I looked high and low for the numbers of performances (and previews), but cannot find them anywhere -- They may simply not have been announced or calculated by anyone (yet). Maybe there is a 2013 West End financial report that might have it. Maybe one of the UK editors knows. These shows do 8 performances a week, so you could give approximate numbers -- it's just math, so I don't think it would fall afoul of the WP:OR rules, as long as you footnote the calculation and cite something that says that West End shows do 8 performances per week. I see 2 obvious problems that should be corrected as soon as possible. First, nearly every ref is missing the author's name. Second, the critical reception section is too long, with too many long bloated quotes. This should be slimmed down to avoid repetition and to quote only the key language that can't be summarized in narration. Depending on how long it ends up, it could also be divided under UK and Broadway subheadings. Good luck with it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added author names as best I could and added Broadway critical reception separate from the West End content, which I pruned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but why don't you use the correct British date format in your references, such as 11 October 2014? The date format that you use will always be a problem, because it is ambiguous. You write, for example, 2014-10-11. Is that November 10, or October 11? Given that some readers will be expecting year-month-day and others year-day-month, this will always create problems, whether the article is using Brit. or American date format. I fixed all of the date formats, but now I see you adding more of the deficient dates. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

I removed the production table, because it contained information that is already given in the article two or more times elsewhere. In addition, the table was not helpful, because it will require updating when new productions appear, and if the play becomes very popular, it will become long. It is not helpful to add more tabular information to an article that already has lots of tabular and bulleted information: character list, cast table, awards table. The best way to make the article robust is to say things once, clearly and concisely, with proper referencing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the table is redundant and unhelpful. To me it is the clearest presentation of the show's history. When the show has had 10 or 12 major productions, we can discuss the confusion of having a table.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have wondered if I should include the preview date (as a separate column or as a parenthetical below the opening date).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happening at the Lowry

The national tour, starting at the Lowry, is happening: I know because I saw it there last night. I want to update the sentence about it. But I can't find a reliable non-ephemeral source for the fact. (I.e. there's a few blogs, and lots of "current events", sites, which will have different content in a month). Can anybody find something? --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, updated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. The problem is that, as well as being written in advance of the opening, Mark Shenton's piece claims that the officialy opening is on 9 January (the penultimate day at the Lowry) and all previous performances are previews. I can see nothing on either the Lowry's or the play's websites that confirm this, and certainly nothing I saw suggested to me that I was paying £42 for a preview ticket. In fact, I can't find a source other than Mark Shenton that even mentions previews. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ColinFine feel free to find a newer source. That is the current WP:TRUTH regarding previews until you find a better ref that says otherwise. Your own personal experience is WP:OR comparatively.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image size

It was set at 300px. The default is 200, so I went with 250, as that is norm for some of the TV/film sizes. 300 is a bit large on some devices. — Wylie pedia 03:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]