Talk:The King and I/Archive 1

Film article

Should there be seperate entries for the Brenner/Kerr film and the musical? The movie was pretty significant. Then, should this page turn into a disambiguation page?-- AKeen 16:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have created an article for the 1956 film at The King and I (1956 film)- AKeen 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Historical accuracy or lack thereof

I'm told that the play is historically inaccurate on several counts: for example, the play implies the King and Anna had some kind of romantic attaction, which I'm told is false. Shouldn't there be a section comparing and contrasting history with the play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.22.120 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Act One

This was on the main page, but a second act was never added, and is unsourced:

Act One

Anna arrives in Siam from Singapore, with her young son Louis. When Louis sees the kralahome or prime minister of Siam approaching their boat he becomes afraid. His mother teaches him how to conquer his fears in "I Whistle a Happy Tune". She is then greeted by the kralahome. There is a discrepancy about her house, which was promised to her. "A brick residence adjoining the royal palace" are the exact words. The kralahome takes her to the king. Meanwhile at the palace an emissary from Burma, Lun Tha, presents to the king a gift of a young girl named Tuptim. When the emissary leaves she sings of her new "Lord and Master", however in the song she reveals that she and Lun Tha are secretly in love. Anna arrives and immediately confronts the king about her house. He dismisses her and tells her to talk to his wives, of which he has many. Anna, after talking to the wives, is amazed at their thinking that all woman are more lowly than men. Anna then speaks of her deceased husband to Lady Thiang, the king's head wife, in "Hello Young Lovers." The king then rushes in to announce that the royal children are ready for presentment. During the "March of the Siamese Children" all the king's children show respect to the king and to Anna. Also during this we are introduced to Chaufa Chulalongkorn, Lady Thiang's son and heir to the throne. Anna is so enchanted by the children she chooses to stay, despite the problem about her house. A couple months later Chulalongkorn is stopped by his father and asked to recite what he has been learning. He then recites a proverb about a house, telling us that Anna is still pressing the matter of her house. He then tells that they learned about how the Earth spins on its axis but he dismiss the idea as false because he has been taught something different. He is then horrified when his father is not sure about what is the truth, since the king is supposed to know everything. He leaves and the king cries out about his vexation and uncertainty in "A Puzzlement". We are then brought to the schoolroom where Anna is teaching the children. We learn that Anna has been enjoying teaching in Siam with "Getting to Know You." When Anna tries to teach the children about snow, they refuse to believe. An uproar then ensures. The king comes rushing in, and instantly quiets his children and wives. He begins to lecture Anna, and in the lecture he reprimands Anna for only teaching his children about a house. An argument follows and Anna threatens to return to England unless she is given a house. This provokes a near fight between Louis and Chulalongkorn, who are now best of friends. That fight is quickly broken up. Anna then accuses the king of being a promise breaker which only provokes him more. Anna and Louis run out and the king is left to wonder about his policies. That same day the prince and Anna's son meet in a corridor where they make up. They then start discussing what make their parents fight, even though they do not think their parents are sure about their conclusions in "Reprise: A Puzzlement". Later that night Anna storms into her bedroom, fuming about the king in "Shall I Tell You What I Think of You?". As she is getting ready for bed Lady Thiang comes to her room. Lady Thiang says that the king was deeply hurt by what Anna said in the schoolroom that day. Since the king has not sent for her she refuses to go. Lady Thiang then reveals that she knows about Tuptim and Lun Tha. Also, she says that the palace has learned that some people are telling Queen Victoria that the king is a barbarian and wish to make Siam a protectorate. She then tells of the kings many shortcomings, but big heart in, what will soon become the theme of the musical, "Something Wonderful". This convinces Anna who heads off to see the king.

this article and the related ones need expanded

For one thing, in the songs, it's missing "I have Dreamed". Articles need created for each of the songs. All the related articles prety much need to include a plot summary and music selection, since that varies. An additional article for the animated version of The King and I also needs created; it appears to be a "disney-fied" the plot compared to the original Joncnunn 17:04, 14 April 2006

Disrespectful

I didn't know where to put this, so here it is...As a matter of cultural etiquette, the Thai people (who revere their King), find this play very disrespectful towards him. So if your travels take you to Thailand or dealing with Thai people, this isn't anything you wish to mention if you're trying to break the ice. I base this on my- and my girlfiend's- personal experience.-Wanfuforever

Language..?

RichCrest Animation Studios (then known as Rich Animation Studios) made a new, animated adaptation of the musical. Many who have seen this version consider it a disgrace to both the original film and the Broadway version.

cant the word 'disgrace' be weasled for a better one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)

Not if you've seen that animated abomination. (Unsigned)

It does say "many say it is a disgrace". That should be okay. There are some newspaper and magazine articles talking about the issue, which could be cited so people could see why the word "disgrace" is (appropriately IMHO) used. --Bluejay Young 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal in Thailand?

I have added a sentence (with a reference) stating that the possession of anything related to Anna and the King of Siam and The King and I is illegal in Thailand. Is this really true? If not, please feel free to revert my edit. Lunasspecto 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is. They're death on anything to do with any of the films or plays, but especially this one. --Bluejay Young 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing this statement. A couple of years ago, I purchased the book The Truth About Anna by William Warren in a bookstore in Bangkok, so it appears the possession of anything related to Anna and the King of Siam and The King and I no longer is illegal in Thailand. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much trivia

I agree with the user who added the tag saying that the page contained too much trivia. I eliminated the trivia that I found to be truly superfluous and moved the trivia about the movie to the corresponding page. If anybody else thinks that the trivia should be replaced, they're welcomed to do it.--Cassmus 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon version

Maybe the cartoon version should have its own article? --Bluejay Young 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Upsetting

I can't believe that the national tour starred Rosalina From the (dorky voice) The Naked Brothers Band. Her acting is sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meldshal42 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Australian productions

Australia had two productions of The king and I, one in 1962 in Melbourne starring Sheila Bradley and Jeff Warren and then in 1992 where Hayley Mills starred as Anna. It was a copy of this production, which opened on Broadway in 1996 and later in London. Hayley Mills came to USA and toured in this production and was followed by Marie Osmond. Shouldn't these productions be in the article?

Plot Summary Expansion

I'd like to expand the plot synopsis. I'm not as familiar with the King and I as I'd like to be, though, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Is it ok if I begin work on it?MarianKroy (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against any considerable expansion, but in favor of subdivision into acts and scenes, supplementation of important plot elements if missing, and correction where necessary. All too often on Wikipedia some contributors bloat plot descriptions beyond the reasonable bounds of an encyclopedia article, and reveal more a slavish fanaticism to the subject than a simple duty to provide a brief synopsis. It's one thing to give away the plot in a few short paragraphs; it's another to engorge the article with tediously unnecessary detail about any little scene or minor plot element. Longer plot-summaries can be found in other venues, and the article should refer to the text of the play/story/novel, etc. for the reader to look up and read. Those kinds of things should be sufficient. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character List?

This article may need a character list to clear up any confusion about who is who

I don't know who wrote this, but I agree that a list of roles and key historical is needed. A compact table like the one in Oklahoma! would be optimal, IMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I've copied it into one of my sandboxes. I will make sure every name is mentioned in the article, then I can say it is a summary and won't have to source it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I will do one for Carousel as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. As I said over at Carousel, I think most readers would prefer the synopsis above the roles/cast table. Also, I think you should include in the table the creators of each role on Broadway, even if they are not bluelinked. If you don't think they are "notable", you could make the heading say "original cast and notable replacements", which is our usual heading at the MT project. The same source given in the productions sections must state their names. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Television version

Sorry, I thought the 1999 movie was for television for some reason. I consider the TV series from the early '70s a descendant of the Landon work not through R & H, even though Brynner supplied the voice. I will change it to "Film versions".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. You may want to move the external link about the TV series to the article on the Landon book rather than here, then? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in leaving it. Hischak does not cover the TV series as a separate entity like he does the movies.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about this once Allegro is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing to a photo

Ssilvers has changed the Ronnie Lee anecdote to have him play Chulalongkorn. There are two issues here, perhaps three. First of all, discussions at WP:RS have had edtors say you should not source to a photograph as it is not a RS. Second, there is no way that the King could tell Chulalongkorn a dirty joke in the final scene of the King and I, as they certainly address each other, but very publicly. They have no "private time" for the telling of jokes, as Chula is busy declaiming orders about bowing and boat races until the curtain falls. And third, while I have no doubt Lee played Chula at some point given the photograph, Lee could easily have been Chula's understudy at some point. Verifiability is key, and the source clearly says Louis. Which makes sense, a publicity shot I've seen shows Louis standing (not yet kneeling) behind the King's couch (i.e., towards the rear of the stage). I'm open to ideas, obviously I want accuracy but I'm not certain that the photograph contradicts the source to such an extent as to justify the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a fact that Ronnie Lee (Ronald S. Lee) did not play Louis, but he played Chulalongkorn for 15 months, beginning 3 months into the run. Lee is listed as Chulalongkorn here, here, here. This is clear: [1]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. I will strike the entire anecdote, as it does not seem to be true! Wonder where Capua got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that he did interview Lee, but that his notes were not clear, causing the mistake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capua's book is not wonderful, I suspect he got little help from Brynner's family or the R&H O. However, it's what I could get.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1953 London reviews

I have added a note summarising the 1953 critical notices. I've put it in the "Original productions" section, but it could perfectly well go in the "Critical reception" section. Hope this is of use, either way. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. You've shored up a weakness. However, I may remove it to critical reception, as you said. Thank you. Anything else on later London productions?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure to be. I'll rummage and report back. (This is a crackingly good article, may I say). Tim riley (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is on the fast track to FAC with the 60th anniversary coming up at the end of March. I'll put Me and Juliet on hold so I can run this instead. Reviews of the later West End productions would be good. If you see how I formatted the statements in critical reception, it would be nice if you could follow that. I need to straighten out the referencing, but that will happen it in the big rush towards FAC (hopefully in a week, once Pipe Dream (musical) clears the page ...)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Whoever is adding stuff to this article without checking to see if what is being added is in the source, please do not do that, it is a clear violation of WP:V.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you have deleted the names of many notable cast members that were identified in this article. All of these for the Broadway revivals are listed in the IBDB. I can't understand the reason for omitting the name of blue-linked actors who appeared in principal roles in the major revivals, and I believe that this article is incomplete without listing them. For example, in the 1979 London production, Virginia McKenna won an Olivier Award for her performance as Anna, so she should be named in the Productions section. The Productions section is inadequate in this article. The reader should be able to find out, in that section, who the notable cast members were in the major revivals. Other deletions that you made today are: Martin Benson, who played the Kralaholme in the original London cast and in the film; John Bennett as the Kralahome and June Angela as Tuptim in the 1979 London revival; the fact that the 1996 Broadway revival closed on February 22, 1998 after 780 performances and was choreographed by Jerome Robbins; and that Josie Lawrence replaced Elaine Page in the 2000 London revival. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional deletions: The London revival played at the Drury Lane Theatre and opened on October 8, 1953. Paul Nakauchi replaced Jason Scott Lee as the king in the 2000 London revival. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not worth sourcing, it's not worth including.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tedious reviewer and this is a longish article. It may take us a while to get through it. Please bear with me.
~~Why all the redundant links in the infobox?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warning I am not a scholar, student or creator of literature or theatrics and this article is outside my area of expertise. I have only written one play article (Pill Hill (play)). Forgive me, if I begin to make odd requests of you. Feel free to comment on the propriety of any editorial requests that I make.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't touch the infobox, I just left it as I found it. I can certainly cut out the redundant links if you think that wise. I am not a theatre person, particularly, but we will just figure things out together.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delink redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The second sentence of the lead refers to The King and I as a "play" which it most certainly isn't. The term play should really only be used to refer to a theatrical production which either does not use music or only uses music in an incidental way.4meter4 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I think seven other R&H works, it was promoted as a "musical play" (see poster which is lead image) (Me and Juliet was a musical comedy).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD

~~If you are going to say musical in sentence one, don't say play in sentence two.~~
~~I would reorder the second sentence to finish describing the play that you mention in sentence one before saying where it opened.~~
Legend seems POV in this context because the details of her career are not presented here.
- Star is not much better. Say actress, entertainer or performer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Lawrence was almost certainly the most famous female stage actress of her day. I have to put something in the lede that indicates she was a cut above the rest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It must be non-POV. Legend, star and noted are all POV. If she had won a previous Tony or Oscar, that would be relevant as an adjective, but POV adjectives are POV no matter how you slice it. Put X-award winning, x-time #1 box office leading lady, or some other objective fact in the LEAD. Nothing POV will get by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~You don't need to give the date twice in the lead. I think the first mention is out of place anyways.~~
~~Link the awards in the third paragraph.~~
~~1246 performances should be followed by dates that will contextualize the year and a half as a small part of a larger period.~~
- I am not reading ahead, but I assume you give a closing date in the main text. This LEAD content is O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss revivals a bit more since one was award winning and several have been on Broadway and West End, which should be mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the 77 and 79 revivals? Did they star anyone notable?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Were any of the revivals at notable theatres?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably mention that the first six productions all earned best actress nominations. It shows how keen Holtzman's eye was for a strong female role.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find someone to put that together for me. I don't want to synth it. Holtzman is an underrated figure in theatre history, she was a woman who made a big success of what was a man's game.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Governess is an important term and should be linked.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean here in the lead rather than later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in both places.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

~~You never mentioned the race, creed or nationality of the widow of a clerk and hotel keeper that resulted in mixed-race progeny.~~

Eurasian (mixed ancestry), I guess the best term would be. Anna Leonowens's ancestry is slightly uncertain, due to out-of-wedlock, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~What was the Singapore currency per month at the time?~~

The source says "Singapore dollars". What is probably being referred to is the Straits dollar, equivalent to the Mexican peso. I'm uncertain that this can be packaged to aid the reader. In the musical, Anna is paid in sterling. There is no way to convert currencies to 2011 sterling or dollars from the Singapore money. If this is a problem, I'll simply strike her salary.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not strike. WP:PRESERVE content. I was just hoping to aid the reader a bit more. If you have reason to believe that straits dollar is relevant link it in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Link canals, Buddhist monk and Christianity.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to date with you so far. I do not believe Christianity should be linked as it is a common term and in this case within a quote. My rule of thumb is only to link within a quote if failing to do so will stop the reader dead in his tracks in wonder what that term means. That is not the case here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inception

~~Is there a link for stage rights.~~

I can't find one. Would you prefer me to rephrase?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give the ignorant reader such as myself a little help. Please rephrase.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

link ~~score, vignettes, South Pacific, Carousel (on first use rather than 2nd), diva, choreography~~, episodic, screenplay, silk.

I took out episodic. People know what episodes are. And I think silk is a common word and there is no need for a link. I will if you insist but I think it is unneeded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't link Carousel twice, only first.~~
"both wives had read the book" -> "both wives had previously read the book" for clarity
~~Should Drury Lane be linked here rather than later?~~
~~"In his part of the song" -> "In his part of the song[,]"~~

This is a quotation. I think it has to be left as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets symbolize that this is a grammatical correction to quoted material.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a link for Siamese-language?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casting and tryouts

What does book mean in this sense?

That which is spoken or sung. This had come up before, I'll deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this link: Book (musical theatre).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Convert $250,000 into current dollars. I have seen this done at Bobby Orr.~~
I am not sure I understand what the Boston Show was since it is said to have opened on Broadway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I have just noticed that the plot is unsourced. Inline citations are required for WP:GAs.
I may have to review this section again if you are going to cite it properly.

Plot summaries need not be cited for purposes of FA, I doubt if GA is stricter. See for example Carousel (musical).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct me to a WP:FILM or WP:THEATER guideline or policy on this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—Act 1

1862 should be followed by a comma.
~~What is a Crown Prince?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—Act 2

I don't quite understand this phrase: hike their skirts over their head.

I can rephrase, but what it means is they lifted the bottom of their skirt in the front to over their heads, thus shielding themselves from Sir Edward's evil eye, which given they had "practically no undergarments" probably gave said evil eye quite a view (the backs of their skirts, on the side facing the audience, remained lowered.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give the ignorant reader such as myself a little help. Please rephrase.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe link curtsey.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it is a common noun that need not be linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principal roles and notable performers

~~Table unsourced~~.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the non-notable members of the opening night cast, they are all mentioned in the article. I will add a cite for the opening night cast, but the rest is already in the article. You do not have to cite data in a table which is cited elsewhere. Again, see Carousel (musical).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I"m sorry Tony, I had failed to have this watchlisted. I've made a good down payment on what needs to be done, and I will resume later today, I pulled a couple of articles on the 1977 production. Most of the things you wanted and that I did not comment on are done, though I need to build up the 1977 and other productions some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've beefed up the revivals. I mentioned the theatre the 1985 production was at (I saw it, twice) but I dislike to turn mentions of revivals into laundry lists down to the third assistant stage manager.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused and not sure how to give guidance on what I as a reader would want. Mainly, my problem is in understanding what counts as a Broadway run or an official revival. I am sure stage companies around the country and around the world have performed this play. Some of them may have been in New York or London. I understand that there is a specific list of theaters that count as Broadway theatre. This list has surely changed over the years. I am not sure if West End theatre is defined the same way. I think if we want to winnow all the productions down to an encyclopedic list, we could have a section "Broadway revivals", "West end revivals" and "major national tours". Other performances would get a bit hard to parse in terms of notability. How about if you have two sections with one full paragraph on each of the Broadway and West end revivals. Another one on major national tours would probably also be encyclopedic. Optimal construction of such paragraphs would have run dates, theater, stars, guest stars, awards and nominations, notable directors, notable producers, and maybe some critical reviews. I don't know how to give guidance on "other revivals". I think it would be fair to restrict other revivals to those covered in the national press. Maybe shows mentioned in national periodicals or the top 5 or so national newspapers. Shows only receiving local coverage would be an endless list and would detract from the encyclopedic concentration of knowledge. Let me know if this helps you to help me see the information that is relevant to me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think using Broadway, West End, National tours would be a format more likely to be perceived as a template that all musicals and plays could replicate. How did the early revivals that you have added get chosen as notable? I apologize, I am seeing that some productions were done in both New York and moved to London. Not sure how to reorganize now. Think about what I said and consider if it would be a better organization, but consider keeping as is as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, unsurprisingly due to production cost savings, these things are utterly intertwined. The 1977 production went on the road as a national tour, it came back in 1985 but also went to London at the same time. You see the difficulties? I do not know if there is a specific definition, but most top productions seem to go through New York or London. I can only suggest that you look at the two relevant articles which are FA: Flower Drum Song and Carousel (musical). Since this is not only the successful format, but also the one which is prescribed by the Musical Theatre Wikiproject, which I am expected for follow, it seems. I don't want to give the reader a list, I want to introduce him to different areas of the subject matter as interestingly as possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion is that there are now a bunch of non-broadway productions in the article. I am quite sure there are a ton more that people could stick. I don't know where to draw the line with non-broadway, non-west end, non-national tour productions. What is notable? I guess we can WP:PRESERVE what you have added, but I am not sure it is really necessary or something that helps to clarify the most encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LEAD mentions Anna and the King of Siam (film), which it pipes as the 1946 version. The Lead is suppose to summarize the main article and I think this should be in the main article in the film versions section in greater detail than its summary in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see expanding the background about it through a brief plot summary, perhaps two or three sentence, but in the background section, not the film section.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the 1998 run in Chicago was at a National Historic Landmark theatre (Auditorium Theater) according to this and this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this controversy be in the text. I am sure there is more to it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look into it. As for the film, I vaguely recall hearing something about it at the time. I'll toss in a mention of the Chicago stop on the national tour in the critical reception section, if it is OK. I have no objection, btw to you putting the article through the wringer, every issue resolved here is one less to worry about at FAC. I'm thinking of trying to get this article on the main page on March 29, the Broadway premiere's 60th anniversary.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I addressed your concern about Boston. Back in the day, Broadway shows did "tryouts in the sticks", that is, they would schedule shows outside of NYC in order to get things right before hitting the Great White Way. R&H shows generally had a weekend in New Haven, then two or three weeks in Boston. Today, Broadway shows have the tryouts (generally called previews) at the theatre on Broadway where the show will be, then they declare one show or another to be opening night when they've worked the kinks out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film was made, Anna and the King. However, it was no descendant of The King and I, but a remake of the 1940s film. I'll put in a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used one of the reviews you found and tossed in a shout out to the theatre.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now aware of content warring with Ssilvers (talk · contribs). This article will not pass with omitted information that is included in IBDB. Please restore and WP:PRESERVE all content that is in IBDB. Try google news searches to source them if necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw my name here. There was no content warring. Wehwalt has deleted information that I added without an in-line cite. Technically he is correct. Re: IBDB, Wehwalt has stated that he will not accept the IBDB as a reference, but I believe that the IBDB should qualify as a WP:RS, as all of its content is subjected to editorial oversight before posting, unlike the IMDB. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYPL Images

There are images of the original production at the NYPL website: See, e.g., [2]. Presumably, these are public domain, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Flower Drum Song: [3] and Carousel: [4], [5]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are beautiful photographs, but unless copyright was not renewed on them, they are not in the public domain. Poking through the disclaimers on the website, the NYPL did not take the photographs and does not opine as to copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see now that the NYPL's Website Terms and Conditions does say that. Sorry. The Carousel images are amazing (and extensive). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... wish we could use them. The scrambling we do for images is the hardest part for me. In case you are wondering, I don't expect to get this article to FAC for at least another month, which is why I haven't been rushing to do things like retrieving reviews for the other revivals. It will all get done, but right now my mind's on Pipe Dream.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I withdraw the nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the nominator's request, this nomination is closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give a reason for the withdrawal, it became apparent that Ssilvers had added much unsourced information to the article. He objected to the removal, even though it was unsouced and a reader would be surprised should he check information against sources. Accordingly, I had no alternative than to withdaw it until I can check against sources and remove all unsourced statements, which I am in the course of doing. As I have gotten sufficient review at this level, any further review will take place elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes under discussion on January 23 and 24, and you can see them here, and I even included hidden comments and edit summaries intended to alert you to the referencing questions. I thought that you had already reviewed these on January 24 and in early February, as you removed the hidden comments and changed some of what I had suggested. In any case, it should be easy now to put the notable info back, with appropriate in-line cites, to improve the comprehensiveness of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then do it. There is no excuse for adding material without citation, January or not. As for comprehensiveness, laundry lists of people with badly written three paragraph WP articles is hardly a question of comprehensiveness.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broader theater database

[Copied a few paragraphs here from the Ssilvers talk page Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]

What do you know about this database?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to any reasonable solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We sometimes cite to it in musicals articles, but I don't know about their editorial policies for their cast/productions database. Here's another site that lists the casts and production info: [6]. Lots of books list bits and pieces of the information, like this. NY Times discusses 1996 cast here. NY Times lists film cast here. There are NY Times reviews of each B'way production, but some of them are payment only articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to the payment only NY Times [articles], the London and tour casts would be harder.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for cast members

Tim may be able to help us with London. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with how the film is covered? Tony seems to think you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it needs to be fleshed out more. It should summarize the major differences between the film and the musical (for example, important songs are cut), explain the reasons for these major differences, name the blue-linked principals (including Benson and Adiarte) and director, describe the success of the film and summarize any other major issues that would be of particular interest to readers of the musicals article. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do. I see that Hischak says three songs were cut, I think one of them was "My Lord and Master", but no doubt I can find a source on that. I doubt if I can find out why they were cut, though. BTW, this only applies to the 1956 film, I don't intend to say anything more about the 1999 film, which I think is adequately covered for its prominence, including the dragons.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film article seems to have some cites. I haven't looked at it carefully, but maybe it can get you most of the way there. Plus, there was more than one NY Times review of the film that named the actors and may have discussed these things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. Please let me know of any other concerns you may have as they arrive. I would like to finish this up this weekend, but I have other commitments. Are the edits I am making to your satisfaction?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at them carefully yet, but they seem to be very good. I would not list all those tours in the infobox - just the most notable ones. The box does not need to list every production described in the productions section; as you say, there are just too many to list, and the infobox gets very long and interferes with the text and images. It's not an exact science, of course. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, thank you. I will resume work later. I still have the Angela matter and a couple of others from what you listed above. Please let me know of any other cast members (leave the movie aside for the moment, I understand what you want there) you think should be included.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks most helpful, but I lack time to deal with it now--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Lawrence

Lawrence is currently described as a "stage actress", which is underwhelming and misleading, since she also starred in films. I suggest "veteran leading lady". It is not over the top like "legendary", it fudges the film/stage issue, and it instantly lets the reader understand that she was both a star and that this was late in her career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any superlatives you care to put in there. I'm fine with what you said. And I think "legendary" is called for, but have not insisted on it. The reader needs to understand that she was a sufficiently Big Deal that she could get R&H to do what she wanted, more or less. Few tried; fewer could.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand your response. Do you agree with "veteran leading lady" instead of "stage actress", or not? Are you saying that you want me to make the edit? If so, I'm happy to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we think of something better? Not every adjective is POV--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's notability questions

[Copied here from Wehwalt's talk page --Ssilvers]
Personally, I don't think an article can pass WP:WIAGA's breadth requirement (3a) without notable performers in notable performances. In fact, it might be argued that the notable performances list should look a bit more like this, which includes Off-Broadway performances.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The more appropriate parallels are those four R&H works which have passed either GA or FA or both. [snip - Wehwalt can add if he wishes -- Ssilvers] .--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disagreeing with my performance list suggestion? I am saying I am not sure what non-Broadway and non-West End performances are notable. I argue that a list like this is a good arbiter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. I really don't think the question is which revivals are notable, Ssilvers has exhibited no disagreement with what is in the infobox, which frankly I did not designate, as I said, I didn't touch the infobox very much. However, just because it is in the infobox does not mean it should then have a lengthy discussion. The King and I is very popular, and probably gets revived dozens of times a year (probably ranks third or fourth in the R&H canon in that regard, depending on whether it aces out South Pacific or not). Where any disagreement lies is whether performers are notable or not. And really, there is not much of a disagreement, and is overshadowed by the whole unsourcing issue. When I take an article to FAC, I don't want the source reviewer to come back and me and say "Joe Blow, who you say played Phra Alack in the 1983 revival in Johannesburg, isn't listed in the source you cited. Why did you do that?" You know and I know that I can't point a finger at that stage because the FAC nominator is entirely responsible for what he's submitted, and Ssilvers is merrily throwing land mines in my path.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with Infobox performance listing. I think this should only include Broadway, West and and major national tours. However, in the text you expand to a few additional tours and I am trying to understand which such plays are notable. I think the newly expanded source is a good one for determining which performances should be in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do I expand to? I'm not certain I understand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the list and compare it to the text. There is a set of Off Broadway plays that it includes. I argue that this is the list of non-Broadway, non-West End, performances that is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the two US tours that had Brynner in them. I think a case could be made for the others, but whereas I might list a City Center or Lincoln Center summer revival for Carousel which is infrequently revived, they don't quite make the grade for King which is revived a lot more. They weren't recorded, my references don't talk about them. Can you imagine how long the list would be for "Oklahoma!"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am your test audience for notability. I do not know what is what and am trying to judge by sources and not preconceptions. The case could be made that you should dig to find sources for this list. I would consider doing so. P.S. Oklahoma is not much longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original runs and extended or open-ended revivals in New York or London, or covering North America, are per se notable. Anything else is up for grabs, they would have to have something exceptional about them. For example, for Allegro, only the original production is listed in the infobox, because even though it has had minor revivals over the years, which are discussed, it has never returned to Broadway or played in the West End.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the landscape of stage performance, where does Off Broadway rank? It is my perception that the source I cite gives a comprehensive OB list. I think it is a copout to say OB is in the "up for grabs" class. WP is more of rule based inclusion thing. I think that since there is at least once source that enumerates OB productions, you should say this list is a list of notable performances for stage productions. I don't believe in "Up for Grabs".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off Broadway is an incredibly broad and amorphous term, which in my view means different things in different eras. I will look at them individually, that is all I can say. I would agree the early revivals may be notable, especially since they were discussed in the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wehwalt that productions should be described in basically chronological order (although one could link a production and, say, the tour of the same production, even if that occurred a few years later). The question is, what productions to describe. If a show has had numerous productions, then I would only discuss the Broadway, West End, and other "major" productions. In the case of The King and I, I think that the selection of productions described is currently approximately right. I will review it now and try to see if I have any questions about it. Generally, I think that we do NOT need to describe *all* Off-Broadway productions. We only need to describe Off-Broadway, Off-West End, regional, touring and foreign productions if they had very substantial runs, major stars and/or won major awards, or if the production was particularly significant/famous/notorious in some other way. However, the database that Tony pointed to is very helpful in listing the Off-Broadway productions, so that we can check those out easily. If it is true, we can also make a general statement, like we make at Hair (musical), that the musical has been produced in "over x countries" and in "over x languages", or some such statement, if we have a reliable source for it. We can also say, if it is so, that the musical is a popular choice among amateur and/or school groups, where that information is available from a reliable source. As for the infobox, I think it should be shorter and only list B'way, West End and other *very* major productions.

I agree with Tony that an article is not comprehensive enough to pass FA unless it lists all the performers (1) in "major" productions, (2) who had a major role in those productions, (3) especially if they are bluelinked. If they were in the original B'way or original West End production and had a major role, or if they won a Tony/Olivier/Drama Desk award for the role, I think they should be mentioned even if they are not blue linked. Same for directors and choreographers of major productions; original designers, but not designers of revivals unless they either won a major award for the revival or are both blue-linked and significantly discussed in the reviews. The editors who regularly edit at WP:MUSICALS have generally agreed on these principles. I agree with Wehwalt that sources for this information must be added in-line. But it would be much easier to reference these simple facts if the IBDB and BroadwayWorld databases were accepted as WP:Reliable sources. It appears that both IBDB and BroadwayWorld review and editorially control all content before it is added to their databases, unlike the IMDB, so I feel that IBDB should be regarded as a Reliable source at FAC. But I admit that there has been no consensus on it, so far, that one would be confident of flying at FAC. Now, we have asked for a consensus about that at the Theatre project, and perhaps we will get an answer that will be helpful. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance, I think this commentary should be held at the project talk although I am not sure how many will respond. I have started a section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had already commented there. Take a look. Also, Tony, you should check out WP:MUSICALS, which is a more directly relevant project for this article than the Theatre project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Productions section

But first one comment on an earlier section: This material has been cut over time, and Wehwalt commented that some of it was dubious, but I think this part of it looks good and should be considered for restoration (I [bracketed] the part that I'm not sure about): "Rodgers had composed Lawrence's songs with her limited vocal range in mind; she had not sung in a musical since 1941 and was on edge.<ref name = "m190">Morley, p. 190</ref> One reason that the team had sought Coward as the King was because of his friendship with Lawrence. Ultimately, much of the work of calming Lawrence fell to Brynner, [and in recognition of this, Lawrence asked, shortly before her death, that he be given star billing, "He's earned it."]<ref>Nolan, p. 203</ref>

Original production ~~is missing a mention of the actors who played Thiang, Lun Tha, Chulalongkorn and Louis. The actors should be mentioned either in the casting section or the production section~~ (why did Stewart leave the cast after only three months?) If the actor is not blue linked (unless he ought to be, like Mervyn Vye), nothing else need be said, unless there is a story to it. It currently says that Sal Mineo "began as an extra, then became an understudy for a younger prince, then an understudy for Crown Prince Chulalongkorn." However, Mineo actually took the role (Lee aged out), so we must say so. Also, Alfred Drake did eventually play the King for three months in 1952 when Celeste Holm played Anna.
First national tour. This needs more info. Patricia Morison played Anna, according to this and this and this and this from rnh.com (click on "Facts & Figures"). Was there anyone else notable in the tour? Note that the rnh site says that the tour was 42 weeks, giving dates, rather than 1 year and 9 months.

I think you may have disoriented the referencing slightly, and that figure of 1 year 9 months is from Capua, which isn't the most accuarate book I've found. Perhaps best to strike the 1 year 9 month figure and put in what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green supports Capua's figure, but maybe Capua is just repeating Green and they're both wrong. Or, RNH could have the starting date wrong. Do you have any other source that you can check? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original London production. Who directed/choreographed? Same team? No one else notable in the cast? I think Wehwalt found a link with more about it, and Tim riley had sent some cites to reviews, and I think Wehwalt has access to the NY Times review - there ought to be more details about the production there. It should certainly have its own paragraph. I think that it should be noted that it was Valerie Hobson's last role and that Muriel Smith was an American. Eve Lister was a replacement for Hobson, and George Pastell replaced Lom. See, e.g., Green's book, p. 233, which gives full cast and creatives and later on the page describes the replacements. Note that Green also discusses the "theme" of the show, which ought to be more clearly discussed in the earlier sections and could cite this. Can we reorganize the refs so that we do not need to repeat the same ref multiple times in the same paragraph?
The City Center and Lincoln Center productions: ~~Were there are other notable actors in those casts? If so, they should be mentioned. We should mention the names of directors/choreographers in each case.~~ If the reviews of those shows point out anything interesting, it could be discussed, but they seem OK on their face. ~~The BroadwayWorld database says that it ran again at City Center in 1961. Can we get more info about this? How long did the Lincoln Center production run (at least approximately)?~~ I added BroadwayWorld cites for some cast info, because I do not have the related NY Times reviews. I bet that the NY Times also has this information, so if anyone can check them and confirm that they also have the principal cast information for the roles listed, then we can remove the BroadwayWorld cites.
Adelphi Theatre 1973. ~~Roger Redfarn directed and Sheila O'Neill choreographed~~ (did she recreate Robbins' choreography? I am guessing "yes"). ~~Was it successful? Green's book mentions it on p. 233 and gives the full cast list.~~ Tim has now given us the key remaining information about this production.
There were also several early regional productions, beginning in 1960. See: http://www.floormic.com/show/120045 I looked them over, and I doubt that any of them were particularly notable. None of them seem to have run for more than a month, and the casts do not seem to be full of big names.
1976 tour: No other notable actors on the tour? Did Yuriko direct and choreograph the tour also?
~~1979 London. June Angela played Tuptim and John Bennett was the Kralahome. Anyone else notable in that cast? How long did the production run?~~
1981 tour: Who directed and choreographed? Any other notable actors on the tour?
1991. How long did the Australian production run? ~~Who choreographed.~~

*1996. The production ran for 780 performances. I understand that Robbins choreographed, which should be mentioned.

~~2000. Who directed/choreographed?~~
2004. There was a national tour directed by Baayork Lee, with choreography by Susan Kikuchi. Sandy Duncan was Anna and Martin Vidnovic (Laura Benanti's father) was the King. See this. There are many reviews on line. Stephanie Powers took over for Duncan throughout 2005.
The blue-linked names need to go into the table. Let me know if you would like my help with this.

Infobox: We do not need to list any of the off-Broadway productions, since they were all limited runs. I don't think we need to list the 1952 tour, the 1976 or 1978 tours, because they were part of B'way/West End productions. However, the 1981 tour went on for years and had lots of history, so I would list it in the box. We don't need the 1997 tour, although we do need to state in the information below that it began in 1997. But we should add the 2004 tour.
~~Note to self: Hischak has more info on film here at p. 150 and about recordings at p. 152.~~

I reviewed the recordings section and made a few editorial suggestions. It seems good to me. Can we reduce the number of cites to the same two sources in these two paragraphs? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if all of this was done it would grossly bloat the production section beyond belief. I suggest that much of this is unneeded in summary style. Vi cannot expect the reader to have that much patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the actual changes I am suggesting would not add more than a few words to each paragraph. It's just that my comments above are very detailed to try to be as clear as possible. I don't think you have given them a chance. I could also suggest a few cuts, like the sentence about who attended a London 2001 performance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Productions Section

[Copied three paragraphs from the Theatre project talk page]:
It seems to me that the content inclusion issue could be solved if Ssilvers (talk · contribs) sourced his content as he added it. Since it seems resolved that IBDB is a valid source, he should readd his desired content with proper attribution to IBDB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will return the state of the article to how it was with Ssilvers' additions in it, and he can source whatever he wants.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's been done. It's up to Ssilvers now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will add the sources and the Production info described here. Give me a couple of days. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a 1998 event (close of the 1996 revival) sourced to a 1996 source. That's just the sort of thing I've been complaining about. Can't you understand that this is improper? I think you will remember from our canvassing discussion that my feeling is that while rules are not made to be never broken, they must be treated with at least some respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is unfair. The Hischak ref was right there with the information all along. I've moved the sentence around to clarify that the fact is referenced by Hischak. Assume good faith, please. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's good faith about inserting material into references which is not found there? I'd be more inclined to grant good faith if I hadn't had this from you all the way back to Carousel and even further.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look at the article I see that Ssilvers is in the process of augmenting the references. I note from the above that some of Ssilvers' additions may be found in the existing citations, though I have not got access to those sources, and cannot comment, but Wehwalt and Ssilvers are two top flight Wikipedians, and I grieve to see them lock horns. Tim riley (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of being the key word; I doubt this would survive a source check at FAC, even the cursory ones they do. Ssilvers is free to withdraw at any time, given the work I've done I at least intend to make sure my work is preserved, though with the bloat and shoddy references it would for sure be quick-failed at GAN now. This is not a theatre program, where we can list the third assistant stage manager without losing the reader's interest. I laughed out loud at some of the prose additions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response section

Tim riley suppied us with the following:

Michael Billington in The Guardian called the 1973 production "well played and well sung". He was enthusiastic about Sally Ann Howes as Anna, but thought Wyngarde "too fragile to be capable of inspiring unholy terror". Billington praised Moyna Cope as the head wife, phrasing "Something Wonderful" with real delicacy. He praised Roger Redfarn's production – "whipped along at a good pace and made a sumptuous eyeful out of the interpolated ballet on 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'." Ref: " 'The King and I' at the Adelphi", The Guardian, October 11, 1973, p. 14.

Robert Cushman in The Observer thought the production "scenically and economically under-nourished", Cushman liked Wyngarde's King ("a dignified clown") but thought Sally Ann Howes not formidable enough to stand up to him ("all her lines are sent straight into the auditorium while she smiles beatifically like a golden haired doll from 'The Sound of Music'. Still, she sings beautifully and the songs are the evening's real justification". Ref: "Gay times for the CIA!", The Observer, October 14, 1973, p. 36.

Wehwalt, would you rather work with this info, or do you want me to put it into the Critical response section? Whatever you prefer is fine with me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would suggest that you put it in the critical reception, as that seems to be our practice, to put reviews of later productions in critical reception. If it gets too long, I guess it can be split into subsections, much as has been done for productions. Can Tim riley get anything on Brynner's final London run (actually, I guess, only London run). Please let me know when you are done with the article and I will copyedit it. I still have hopes of seeing this TFA on March 30 (the premiere was March 29, but it would have taken place after midnight on the 30th by Universal Time, and someone else wants the 29th anyway). That means that we really need to move ahead. I will cut out the bickering for the duration, but if I deem your demands unreasonable I will throw up my hands and walk away.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like you citing to a classified ad. That seems to me an unneeded primary source, if you are merely establishing who the cast members are.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ref. verifies the closing date of the show. If you have another ref that verifies the closing date at the Palladium, feel free to substitute it. Indeed, if you have any cites that more efficiently verify any particular facts, please go ahead and substitute them - I know you have access to some sources that I don't have. Based on the discussions above, I am being very careful to cite sources in-line for every fact stated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to give the screamer in the ad, as in "Final days of The King and I" or whatever it might be, as well as listing the organization, as best can be told, that placed the ad. I am glad you are being careful. Let me know when you feel I should look over the changes. I expect that it will take several days to make changes and have any necessary discussions. As far as I know, the only thing I might have access to that you might not is the NY Times archives. I will look for NY Times references to TKaI for 1973, but I fear we are already heavily reliant on the Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have part of an article pack still unexpended for the LA Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Wehwalt, I think that most of the information that I have referenced to BroadwayWorld and IBDB is contained in the NY Times articles that you have already referenced, but I can't access them. Would you kindly look where I have added a cite to either BroadwayWorld or the IBDB and compare the info to the NY Times article that you have already cited in the same paragraph? If it turns out that the information is already there in the NY Times article, then we can delete the BroadwayWorld and IBDB cite and just cite the whole paragraph to the one Times article. Also, because of my abundance of caution, you will see that some paragraphs have the same ref up to three times, alternating with another ref multiple times (e.g., the paragraph for the original London production), and this is because I did not have access to some of your sources. If all of the information is contained in your source (s), it would be better to just source the whole paragraph to the one or two sources, so that it doesn't bristle with cites. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can on the Productions section. Let me know where you think it is too much, and perhaps we can discuss it with Tony and Tim. Updates on my various comments/questions:

You previously had written: "Rodgers had composed Lawrence's songs with her limited vocal range in mind; she had not sung in a musical since 1941 and was on edge.<ref name = "m190">Morley, p. 190</ref> One reason that the team had sought Coward as the King was because of his friendship with Lawrence. Ultimately, much of the work of calming Lawrence fell to Brynner, [and in recognition of this, Lawrence asked, shortly before her death, that he be given star billing, "He's earned it."]<ref>Nolan, p. 203</ref> You later deleted it because, I think, something else in the same paragraph was wrong, but isn't the above info worth noting? (maybe not the [bracketed] part).

No, the calming Lawrence part seems also dubious. If you need fuller information, please email me, hint hint.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Original production: Any idea why Stewart (Chulalongkorn) left the cast after only three months?~~

I didn't know he had. That is surprising. If he literally left after exactly 3 months, that is on June 29 or thereabouts, the theatre season and the contract with Equity always expired at the end of June, which is why you often saw poorly performing shows close then, especially in an era of formal dress for the theatre and air conditioning slowly being installed in Broadway theatre. Only a guess, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First national tour. This needs more info. Was there anyone else besides Brynner and Morison notable in the tour? Green and Capua agree that the tour was 1 year, 9 months. Capua could be repeating Green. RNH.com says 42 weeks and gives dates under "Facts & Figures". Do you have any other source that you can check? Maybe Tim can help.

I will do more research.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original London production. Can we reorganize the refs so that we do not need to repeat the same ref multiple times in the same paragraph?

I will look at it tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the opening night itself, I'm afraid, both Times articles that mention the London opening concentrate on the British reviews. I have found an article, Brooks Atkinson went to London about 20 months into the run, when the replacement cast was with the show, and he found the peformances mostly commonplace but admired Muriel Smith as Lady Thiang. I'll add something in critical reception.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The City Center and Lincoln Center productions: I added BroadwayWorld cites for some cast info, because I do not have the related NY Times reviews. I bet that the NY Times also has this information, so if you can confirm that NYT has the principal cast information for the roles listed, then we can remove the BroadwayWorld cites.

Ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Adelphi Theatre 1973. Sheila O'Neill choreographed. Did she recreate Robbins' choreography? I am guessing "yes", since all the others did.~~

Almost certainly, but I will check Times archives. Note that anyone can run the search, it is accessing the articles with the dollar sign symbol that you need me for. I get 100 accesses a month and I've only used it up once.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the NY Times about this production. We do not need to list the director and choreographer for every production ever, and as a relatively small production, I feel comfortable omitting it. This is rapidly becoming a wall of text article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many regional productions, beginning in 1960. See: http://www.floormic.com/show/120045 I looked them over, and I doubt that any of them are particularly notable. None of them seem to have run for more than a month, and the casts do not seem to be full of big names.

Agreed, no need for regional productions when TKaI is so often given first-class revivals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We make a statement at the end of the Productions section that the show is often done in regional theatre, which is enough for me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1976 tour: Did Yuriko direct and choreograph the tour also?

No idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the NY Times archives and what free material I can get on Google. I don't see anything on this, beyond Towers as Anna.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that Brynner's disastrous failure in Home Sweet Home (musical) preceded his decision to be the King effectively for the rest of his life? I can still envision those commercials with Brynner ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. More relevant is that he split up with this 3rd wife after agreeing to the 1981 tour (she complained that he spent barely any time with her or their children), and I saw lots of references to his entertaining female fans while on tour. But those could just as well go in his bio article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~1981 tour: Who directed and choreographed? Any other notable actors on the tour?~~

The 1981 tour was an effective continuation of the Broadway/London production, there was no change in director/choreographer as made clear in the 1985 reviews that commented on how tired the production had become.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything in the NY Times. As Brynner's 4000th show as the King took place in LA, there was undoubtedly LA Times coverage and I will check their archives tonight. Also, Brynner successfully sued Equity about this time about the high dues he had to pay them as a non-American (he was by then a Swiss citizen). Do you think that is worthy of mention?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mention the equity suit, although it ought to go in his bio article. Thanks for looking at NYT. One fact that LA Times might tell us is whether there were other notable actors on the tour. I'm sure there were, over the course of such a long tour, and one or two names would help close the gap. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~1991. How long did the Australian production run?~~

No idea, probably it moved around too. From what little I know of shows in Australia (I've been to the SOH twice) they go on predetermined runs, then move on to the next city as scheduled.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen the info anywhere (e.g. the 1985 reviews), it will have to remain a loose end. I agree that it's not that important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. From the little I've read about it, it was a regional production that made good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can say that it was a "surprise hit", leading to the transfer? Does the source support something like that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blue-linked names need to go into the casting table.

I will do that last, so as to spare repeated effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I slimmed down the Infobox: IMO, we do not need to list the limited run City Center productions in the box. We also don't need the 1952, 1976, 1978 or 1997 tours in the box, because they were part of preceding or following B'way/West End productions. However, the 1981 tour went on for years, so I added it. I added the 2004 tour to the box.
Hischak has more info on recordings at p. 152. As we previously discussed, I think the description of the 1956 film should briefly summarize the major differences between the film and the musical (for example, important songs are cut), briefly explain the reasons for these major differences, name the blue-linked principals (including Benson and Adiarte) and director, describe the success of the film and summarize any other major issues that would be of particular interest to readers of the musicals article. Film section seems good to me now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: Green briefly discusses the "theme" of the show, which might be added to the discussion earlier. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or at the end, to give some substance right before the ending quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I copyedit, which I will once all this is done, I do not intend to start scrapping large amounts of information and embroil myself in lengthy discussions. I'm content to wait and see what reviewers have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is growing disconcertingly long.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added this last night. I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to keep some/all of it. I am just pointing out that it was added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've undone that. It is unsourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything else which comments on the length of the original US tour. I suggest we go with the R&H people. Is there anything else that you feel still needs to be done? I think it is comprehensive now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film

Aside from cut three songs and streamlined the show, I don't know of any source which lists the exact changes that were made. I know some of the "front of curtain" or whatever they are called, scenes were cut, for example the short scene between Lady Thiang and the Kralahome after "Something Wonderful" in which they comment on Anna going to the King and Lady Thiang reprises "Something Wonderful", basically a time killer to allow the stagehands time to move out Anna's room and get the King's room on. I take it you've googled? I just want to know where to focus my attention. You want me to look at the 1956 movie reviews, correct?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some. Please let me know if you can retrieve those pages, if you cannot I will add a "subscription required". I believe that the Times lets anyone see its movie reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can view the Times film review. The NYT awards page is wrong! Sharaff *won* the Oscar for costume design. I added a cite. I also added a source that notes that they cut "I Have Dreamed", but you may have a better source. Also, I noted that this was their 2nd most successful film. If you don't think that Hischak says that clearly enough, Kenrick says so (although you have to look in two places on his site to see which one was first), or you may have a better source for that assertion. Other than that, I think the film section is done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the claim that "I Have Dreamed" was cut for the movie. It is only sourced to a fan site, and the particular part of it it is sourced to is a copy of the trivia entry at IMDB. That is actually very noticeable by the fact that the section is headed "trivia" and an adjacent section is headed "goofs". Also, the second most successful (whatever that means) film is also not even mentioned in Hischak, and I am surprised that you would consider it even partially sourced to that. I would have assumed that if only to mollify me, you would take care to see that only reliable sources are used, but from what I can see, it's anything goes. How is it productive to waste either of our times on this abortion?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I Have Dreamed" was cut from the film. If you don't want to suggest an alternate source for this important fact, there is no point in mentioning the names of the other cut numbers. I assume that you don't want to cite Kenrick re the "success" issue, as I mentioned above (last night). Therefore, I have now finessed the issue by quoting Hischak. If you think it would be helpful, we could extend the Hischak quote to where he says that the film was not as popular as "The Sound of Music"; but I think it's OK as is, now. Let me know when you will have the information that you promised above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better I cut my losses.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the film section is done (subject to other people's comments)? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means I am taking time away from this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 2012 revival

I came across this. I'm uncertain if this is definite enough to mention. Note that this published article clearly includes language from Wikipedia, so don't be caught in an editing circle.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's premature, per WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of theatre projects get cancelled or rescheduled, and the article states that "we're told that it's not yet definite". I think it's best, in general, to wait until casting begins. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on this? Upon a quick google search, I saw that the idea was still being kicked around as of last April. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there was a 2012 tour going on, produced by an Atlanta company, starring Victoria Mallory (who is 63 years old), with Ali Ewoldt as Tuptim, and directed by Baayork Lee. But I'm doubtful that it's a "major production", despite Lee's involvement. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Darn. I certainly would have gone out to Wolf Trap to see it. Given the many productions since 1951 and our practical limitation on space, I don't think it makes the cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. What we could do is, where we mention Baayork Lee and Kikuchi, just say that "Lee and Kikuchi directed and choreographed later productions" and cite this article. But it's not essential - up to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update II (as of December 20, 2012)

[As of 1/13/2013: This is all Done]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Although I can't remember exactly where I was at when we suspended work, here is what I think was still unfinished:

You had objected to the BroadwayWorld and IBDB cites. I am confident that IBDB is a reliable source. See this and this and this. See IBDB's methodology here and policies here. [UPDATE: Broadway World.com and BroadwayWorld are frequently cited throughout the musicals in Wikipedia (cited in over 15,000 and 2,000 articles on Wikipedia, respectively) and also cited in news articles and elsewhere. It is published by wisdom digital media. All submissions of content to the site require editorial review by their staff. So I think it will pass RS.] If you object to the remaining five Broadwayworld cites, I think you can find the same information in the NY Times articles that you have already referenced, if you still have a NYT subscription (sorry, I do not). Also, to be safe, I had added a ref to some paragraphs more than once, alternating with another ref to make sure that each statement is referenced (e.g., the paragraph for the original London production). However, if all of the information for a particular paragraph is contained in your source(s), it would be great if you can just source the whole paragraph to the one or two sources, so that it doesn't bristle with as many cites.

I have no objection to the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote: "First national tour. Was there anyone else besides Brynner and Morison notable in the tour? Green and Capua agree that the tour was 1 year, 9 months. Capua could be repeating Green. RNH.com says 42 weeks and gives dates under "Facts & Figures". Do you have any other source that you can check?" You replied: "I will do more research."

Hischak says "The national tour ran a year and a half".(page 150). That tends to support the former sources, but it is hard to rule against the specificity of people who should know. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The RNH page solves this now, giving a closing date for the tour. Note that the RNH pages for this show seem to have been reorganized, with some info put under "Trivia" instead of "History". We'll need to recheck the RNH cites throughout the article to make sure that the info referred to hasn't been moved from "History" to "Trivia". You also might find some more tidbits on this page that you think we should include. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing leaps out but I'll keep it available. The tour they are talking about started in 1954, I would note, following the Broadway close. I think we're talking about two different tours here, and the others are talking about a tour which was going on while the Broadway production was still going, as Hischak says it was followed by the 1953 London production. I seem to recall that R&H often had touring productions once a show had been open a few months or a year.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is all cleared up. RNH says clearly that the U.S. national tour began on March 22, 1954 (two days after the show closed on Broadway), starring Yul Brynner and Patricia Morison, and closed on December 17, 1955. This is confirmed generally by Kenrick, Capua and Green. My initial confusion was simply because there is a typo in the RNH note that says 42 weeks, but they must have meant 92 weeks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley suppied us with the following re: the 1973 production in London:

Michael Billington in The Guardian called the 1973 production "well played and well sung". He was enthusiastic about Sally Ann Howes as Anna, but thought Wyngarde "too fragile to be capable of inspiring unholy terror". Billington praised Moyna Cope as the head wife, phrasing "Something Wonderful" with real delicacy. He praised Roger Redfarn's production – "whipped along at a good pace and made a sumptuous eyeful out of the interpolated ballet on 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'." Ref: " 'The King and I' at the Adelphi", The Guardian, October 11, 1973, p. 14.

Robert Cushman in The Observer thought the production "scenically and economically under-nourished", Cushman liked Wyngarde's King ("a dignified clown") but thought Sally Ann Howes not formidable enough to stand up to him ("all her lines are sent straight into the auditorium while she smiles beatifically like a golden haired doll from 'The Sound of Music'. Still, she sings beautifully and the songs are the evening's real justification". Ref: "Gay times for the CIA!", The Observer, October 14, 1973, p. 36.

We need to put this in either the production section or the critical response section. You had said at one point "I will look for NY Times references ... for 1973, but I fear we are already heavily reliant on the Times."

Done by Wehwalt. Nice! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I basically used what you said above :)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original London production. You had written: "I have found an article, Brooks Atkinson went to London about 20 months into the run, when the replacement cast was with the show, and he found the peformances mostly commonplace but admired Muriel Smith as Lady Thiang. I'll add something in critical reception".

I think that's worth the space. He also mentions that the Siamese might not agree that they have more to learn from the West than the other way around, something to keep in mind for the cultural change bit if we do it. If you want to see it, I can email you screenshots.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't need to see that; I'll just read what you write. Obviously, anything that's already in the Thailand article can be very brief here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had the following discussion, but the info does not seem to be in the article. I suggested that we should note that Brynner split up with this 3rd wife after agreeing to the 1981 tour (she complained that he spent barely any time with her or their children), and I saw lots of references to his entertaining female fans while on tour. But those could just as well go in his bio article. You replied: "Very true. I agree." But the info is not in either article.

I think that anything possible should go in the bio article, to spare room here. If you have a source handy, I will do the honors. The production history here is long, so if we can slip anything optional to a side article, it would be good. We're at 90K, articles ALWAYS grow in the review process, and I think more needs to be said about the, um, updated view of Thailand in the 1996 production and why that was felt to be necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Capua book should get you most of the way there, especially if you can get access to page 152. His son's book, Yul: The Man Who Would Be King Berkeley Books: 1991 should also cover it, but I don't have either. He earlier had a serious affair with Marlene Dietrich at age 30. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something brief to the Brynner article, based on page 151.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose the affairs and the breakup of the marriage don't really affect the show's article, so that's done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1981 tour: I suggested that the LA Times might tell us what other notable actors were in the cast for substantial periods, over the course of the four-year tour, and one or two names would help close the gap in the text there. You replied "That won't be a problem", but I don't think you got to it. But, of course, it is possible that there weren't any other notable cast members or replacements.

The only LA Times article I see from this period is on August 16, 1983. It focuses exclusively on Brynner and Kathy Lee. There's a couple of pieces of possibly useful information: he used a hospital bed on tour in his later year because of aftereffects from an injury at age 17, and every year on September 6 (her death date), would assemble the cast and speak of Gertrude Lawrence to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The annual Gertrude Lawrence speech sounds like trivia - it would go in a footnote at most. If the injury inhibited his performance, it should certainly go in his article with a brief mention here. After all, we only mention his lung cancer once. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the review from the Washpost from December 1984, which was part of the tour though really I suspect an out of town tryout before the Broadway run. It gives the cast list, though not all roles are specified. No one notable who is not already in the article (Piel and Welch, really). Brynner did have a way of soaking up all available publicity. I found an article where he talks about his prep for the role back in 1951, but I will inline cite to him as it may be spin, we'll never know, but the reader should know we aren't presenting it as gospel and make his own judgment (like Brynner's propaganda about never missing a performance). However, it gives some other credits, with Mitch Leigh as producer and director notable. Suggest we fill in with Leigh, the choreographer (Rebecca West, who was also in the ballet with Kathy Lee), and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Having just looked around a little myself, I am not surprised that there is no one else notable on the tour. Adding Leigh and West will be good. I'm not sure how encyclopedic Brynner's preparation for the role is, unless it was something really interesting. Maybe something very brief. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Green briefly discusses the "theme" of the show, which might be added to the early sections.

Do you have a link to this?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here. It's nice and brief. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm down with the flu and not concentrating very well. When I'm able to, this is first on the agenda.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to object to IBDB or Broadwayworld.com. I found some useful stuff on ProQuest. Can I email it to you? I think I have yours still.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got all of it, except where I've questioned and we haven't quite resolved the issue yet. Allowing a couple of days for polishing, can we send it for peer review?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all I can think of: First, see my new replies to your comments above. Also, there are two older things that need responses above: 1) The RNH pages for this show seem to have been reorganized, with some info that had previously been on their "History of the show" page now put under "Trivia", which is really an out-of-sequence timeline. We'll need to recheck the RNH cites throughout the article to make sure that the info referred to hasn't been moved from "History" to "Trivia". ~~2) the brief theme mention in Green here.~~ But there's no reason you need to wait to send it to PR if you feel that you've got everything in there that you want to put in. I intend to do a fresh read of the article at some point to see if I can streamline any prose, but it would only be little nips and tucks. Last thing: you did not respond again to my last comment in the previous thread about the 2012 revival. I have not yet had a chance to review your changes to the article from today, but I hope to look at them later today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until you do, then. I think it will answer a lot of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not presently able to load any page from rnh.com by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole site seems to be down right now. Let's check over the weekend. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Update: This is all Done]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ss Editing notes

Re: the Lead:

I'd rather call the work a "musical" than a stage musical, as the musical theatre article does. A film musical ought to say that it is a film musical, but the word musical alone should raise the rebuttable presumption that that a stage work is meant. The great majority of our articles just say "musical". I'm sorry I hadn't noticed this before, and I would suggest the same change for the other FA musicals we've done.
This was the fourth longest-running Broadway musical in history (at the time it closed), after Hellzapoppin' (which was just a revue), Oklahoma! and South Pacific. Should we mention that somewhere? I'm not sure that just saying that it ran for three years gives a fair idea of how successful it was in its day, since post 1960 musicals have more often had very long runs.
I think we can cut the last sentence of the LEAD - we already said that there were revivals. And I think we may be making too much of the previous sentence and could shorten it to: "Further successful revivals were mounted, and and Brynner came to dominate his role and the musical, starring in a four-year national tour culminating in a 1985 Broadway run shortly before his death." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all of them. Do you have a source for the second one? I will run through the five FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell from this article and by looking up the opening dates on IBDB. I don't think this is prohibited as synthesis under the OR rules, because it is a completely mechanical comparison of dates and run lengths. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the above, you meant to kill the last sentence of the lead also, right? I'll make it so and add the info and ref also to the "Original Productions" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, in looking at it I don't think we can end with Brynner. He is no longer the be all and end all, and we can't end with 1985. I've added a fairly generic sentence, feel free to give it a shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Historical Background" and "Inception", I made changes that you can check to see if you agree. I also left you one hidden question. Gotta run now but will make more progress tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question, though, on the plot summary. You wrote: "both express their wish that Anna had never come to Siam." It used to be clear that "both" meant Anna and the King. Now it appears to mean Anna and the Krahalome. Is that right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a difficult thing to express. I feel I need to mention the King to nail down what happens to the ring, so that makes the prose a bit dicey. Feel free to improve.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know what you mean by "both". Do you mean 1) both Anna and the King; or 2) both Anna and the Krahalome? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna and Kralahome. Feel free to improve.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gave it a try and also tried to smooth out some choppy sentences earlier in that paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate the way mdashes look in WP text. I was reminded of this because you just put more of them in the Lead. I'd much rather see spaced ndashes if we must use dashes (I thought the parens looked nice), but I know that mdashes are acceptable under MOS. If you prefer the mdashes, please let me know. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you switch them, I'll keep to the convention thereafter.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in the Lead now seems perfect! I'll look at the other dashes later, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since you seem generally satisfied with progress, I am going to nominate for peer review and we will see where it goes from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations: I have never liked this format, which was introduced by a single person to many musical theatre articles about a year ago. It is a huge space waster and is mostly either repetitive or trivial. Frankly, I preferred the previous, more compact, non-tabular presentation. Can anyone think of a more compact presentation, or, should we simply summarize the information in the various relevant productions paragraphs (or a new narrative subsection) and move the full awards section to a sub-article? I wouldn't mind keeping it here in a section if it could be, say twice as compact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not do it as prose, it would be like a third trip through the productions, after the production section and the critical review. If you want to switch it to another format, it is not a matter I greatly care about.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that eliminates one option. Let me rephrase, then, the remaining options: Can anyone think of a more compact presentation, or, should we simply ~~summarize the information in the various relevant productions paragraphs (or a new narrative subsection) and~~ move the full awards section to a sub-article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to add prose at all. It would slow the pace of the article to an utter crawl. It's like rolling the credits, over and over. And the article is very long. If you want to switch it back to the old format, I don't see why not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Sorry, I did not ask above what I meant to ask, as I forgot to delete a key part. Here's the question: What about moving the table to a subarticle, since the key information is already contained in the Productions section? I think it would be better to just get rid of it here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done! That reduced the length of the article by more than 5,500 characters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]