User talk:Omtay38/sandbox

Original notes from omtay38: I tried to keep the format away from lists as much as possible. All examples (except for the Godspell one) were made up by me on the spot and could use some help or even complete replacement. This document would become not only the basis of all new articles on musicals, but also the go-to for any disputes or analysis of current musical articles. Therefore, it should have some aggressive analysis. To keep this organized, please do not edit above, but rather place your suggestions on this page, with an appropriate heading. I will then review the comments below and add them to the other page. Let the analysis begin. --omtay38 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

For the Intro section, why not add an example on how you think a good intro should look, and then we can discuss it. Right now, the description of what should be in the intro is very vague. --Ssilvers 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure exactally how to write it, anybody got an idea (or a page with a good one that we can copy right now?) --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Tags

Where should the spoiler tags go? I don't think the whole Synopsis should need spoiler tags. Perhaps just the denoument? Otherwise, The word "Synopis" would always mean the same thing as "Warning: this contains the plot." Also, do we really need spoiler tags on the Sound of Music, or Phantom of the Opera? --Ssilvers 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i've been looking around and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera states "The use of spoiler tags before synopsis/plot summaries is regarded as unnecessary and distracting." I think we could follow their example. Or perhaps just around the truly secretive parts of the plot (i.e. the very ending of Wicked). --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music/Dramatics

Wouldn't it be better to call this Musical Analysis and Dramatic Analysis? --Ssilvers 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. The reason it is now called Music is so that "List of Musical numbers" can be a subheading under it to help us stray away from lists. I actually like the heading Musical Analysis better but don't want to make "List of Musical numbers" a first level heading (at least not on the Article Structure page). --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and Cultural Impact

These should not overlap. Cultural impact should include all references in other works of literature, not Trivia. Personally, I think that Trivia is a bad idea, because it encourages editors to stick in stuff that is not notable, NPOV and unreferenced, or not substantially related to the article. Probably, anything notable and necessary to the article would fit in another category. --Ssilvers 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true and I agree wholeheartedly. However, many articles already have pure trivia sections (Fiddler on the Roof). What should be done with those? --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from main page

Feel free to organize them by topic, I just won't have the time to do so untill tomorrow

I noticed you left out categorization in the guidelines. I'd suggest adding a short section outlining which basic categories a musical should be placed into. Something like:

Determine the first verified year "YYYY" the musical was produced, and place the article in Category:YYYY musicals.
Look at the nationalities of the musical's composers and book authors. If they're all from the same country, place the article in that country category found under Category:Musicals by nationality. For example, if the musical's creators were all American, then place it under Category:American musicals.
If the article mentions the musical ever appeared on Broadway, include it in Category:Broadway musicals. If the article says it was an Off-Broadway production and never played Broadway, instead include it in Category:Off-Broadway musicals. A musical normally should not appear in both these categories simultaneously.
If the musical ever appeared in London's West End, include it in Category:London West End musicals
If the musical was made into a musical film, include it in Category:Musical films. If the musical is a stage production adaptation of what was originally a film, place it in Category:Musicals based on films. If the musical was adapted for a musical on television, include it in Category:Musical television specials.
Lastly, if the musical doesn't clearly fit into ANY of those subcategories, place in in the overall category Category:Musicals. Only articles which do not fit in any subcategory should appear here (which means that most of the articles still in this category are probably stubs that need additional information or which haven't yet been sub-categorized).

Just a suggestion. Dugwiki 12:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion tanken. (sorry for the late response too) --omtay38 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed our current plan is very anti-lists. So just a question: what's wrong with having some lists? I realize that having every castlist ever, a list of awards, and then a list of musical numbers would be cumbersome and I know we're worried about featured status, but I think having some lists is all right/unavoidable. I mean I agree it'd be good to have some narrative regarding awards to contextualize, but would you really go through 5 Tony awards saying "____ won best actress...because she was the best actress. ____ won best featured actor...because he was fucking awesome. ___ won lighting design because he had the prettiest lights of them all. ___ won best director because his direction was better than everyone else's"? Also I think an OBC list is okay for the major roles. Just my two cents :) --Drenched 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I have incorporated some language that basicaly states "if you must use a list, please do so". --omtay38 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In omtay's defense, while lists can be informative, they are not considered "good prose" — a requirement for WP:GA and especially WP:FA. They really should be avoided at all cost unless the prose is overly redundant. And there's no need at all to have a new sentence for each award either. Ex.: The Drowsy Chaperone walked away with five Tony Awards under its belt, including Best Musical, Best Original Score, Best Scenic Design, Best Costume Design, and Best Featured Actress in a Musical for Beth Leavel as the Chaperone. Just my $.02. — warpedmirror (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this is good; if we can do all this and cite sources it'd be great. Crystallina 21:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One concern about bolding the musical numbers in the synopsis: Doesn't WP:MOS say that they should be in quotes? I could very well be wrong and I'll go check right now, but I thought that might be a concern worth worrying about (?). — warpedmirror (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a concern, we should stick to the WP:MOS as much a possible. According to the Manual of Style, for popular music "album titles should be in italics, and song titles should be in quotes". Also in Manual of Style it mentions that song titles should be in quotes. However, because we are writing the article structure guide for articles about Musical Theater, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we would have the license to add to the manual of style something like "when listing the musical numbers from a musical theater show, do this..". What makes me think this was the popular music section of the music MOS. There it says, "Main article: Wikiproject Music. Thus I think if we form consensus on how the numbers should be listed when they are listed within a synopsis, we can put that into the manual of style. --omtay38 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I made some minor copy edits and added a paragraph before I read the above, but I think the changes are not too controversial. Check the history and delete or move down here if you disagree. Also, I added my comments on the discussion page. Can we move all this discussion to the discussion page, which is the more standard way to do it? Finally, I thought we decided that the nationality of a musical for Category purposes depended on where the main premiere was, not on the nationality of the authors. If Sondheim writes a musical for a West End theatre, or if Lloyd Weber writes one for a Broadway theatre, which is it? --Ssilvers 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and the discussion has been moved. As for the Categories, I'm not really sure. Anybody know? --omtay38 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was thinking the same thing as Ssilvers, but then I started thinking of exceptions that would make the current method more acceptable. For example Bombay Dreams premiered in London and then opened in New York (thus making one think it would belong in Category:British musicals). However, the entire show takes place in Bombay, India, was written by A. R. Rahman (an Indian composer), and several of the songs are in Hindi. But since (as far as I know), it has never played in India — so does it belong in Category:Indian musicals? Miss Saigon features only Vietnamese and American characters, but originally opened in London. What to do...what to do...? — warpedmirror (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]