Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Categories.... again....

I think we should get rid of all "Musicals by Ethnicity" categories. We've been trying to figure out what to do with them for awhile, and the existance of Category:Chicago musicals is being used to justify adding Wicked (musical) to WikiProject Chicago -- during its FA review. Can we just get rid of them? —  MusicMaker5376 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote yes. They seem to be much more of a problem of both too much labor and blurry definitions. Plus, I doubt that many "readers" use these categories as a means of navigation. Also, a side note: there are two (that's right two) articles in Category:Chicago musicals. Hardly a benefit to organization or navigation. --omtay38 07:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest keeping Category: Broadway musicals and Category:London West End musicals, simply because they are well-known, broadly definable concepts. Clearly, the user adding WP:CHICAGO to Wicked is trying to do the same thing with Chicago musicals, but calling something a "Chicago musical" has no meaning outside of this context. Wicked, for one, has no connection with Chicago other than as (basically) an extended stop on its tour ([1]). I'm loathe to lose all the "ethnicity" tags - the American musical, for example, is of huge importance beyond this project, in the wider world, and examples of it should be tagged as such. But maybe we limit it to just a few - Broadway, West End, American, British, European? I know we've talked about what these actually mean, but if we treat it with some common sense on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure we can come to some consensus for the trickier ones.
Definitely lose Category:Chicago musicals, though!
- Dafyd (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
See, but the justification for Category:Chicago musicals will be "If we have Broadway and West End, we should have Chicago," and, frankly, I would agree. Chicago is becoming a major theatre town. The definitions of what makes a B'way musical or a WE musical don't even exist. The historical concept of the "American Musical" has no relevance in the new millennium. We live in an extremely global society. Yadda yadda yadda. I don't want to seem like I'm not acknowledging your objections, but I've been making this same argument for 6 months! These things have to go.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Tricky, i would also say keep Category: Broadway musicals and Category:London West End musicals, and if nominated for deletion they will probably be kept. Talking about nominating for deletion...are we going to nominate the Chicago cat and others for deletion? Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I nominated Category:London West End musicals to be renamed to simply "West End musicals" awhile back and it nearly got deleted.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Category:Chicago musicals, Chicago is not a major theatre town. It lists two musicals, neither of which originated there. According to West End theatre, "Along with New York's Broadway theatre, West End theatre is usually considered to represent the highest level of commercial theatre in the English speaking world" - seems quite a straightforward definition. Mary Poppins (musical) is a West End musical (and, later, a Broadway musical), but The Dreaming isn't. If it has played on B'way or in the West End, it goes in those cats. Not complicated. We make a decision to keep only those cats because they represent "the highest level of commercial theatre". At the moment, Chicago (or elsewhere) does not.

"American Musical" may not be a valid definition for new shows, but it certainly is for earlier musicals. We can't lose it just because Wicked or Spamalot don't neatly fit into it. Plenty of historically significant musicals are easily defined as an "American Musical" (in capitals)... There was a great PBS/BBC documentary series a few years ago ("Broadway: The American Musical") that analysed exactly this conundrum - the bigger Broadway gets, the less significant the concept of the "American Musical".

Likewise, I agree that there is no easy answer, MusicMaker, but I'm not sure that getting rid of everything is the answer. - Dafyd (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to keep Broadway, Off-Broadway, and WE -- simply as a mechanism to organize things by where they got their first production. But, by your own admission above, the definition of the "American Musical" is becoming less and less relevant. We can't keep it just to house historical musicals. WP is not paper: if the "American Musical" no longer has any meaning, we shouldn't cling to anachronisms. —  MusicMaker5376 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey everybody, take a look at what we're talking about. Namely our very own Category Tree. Broadway, Off-Broadway, and West End are not under Category:Musicals by nationality. (Admittedly, neither is Category:Chicago musicals). If we say "we're deleting nationality categories" none of the ones we have specifically debated are under that category. :-D --omtay38 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
By the by, if you must know, any "large scale production" that happens in Chicago is most likely a part of a venture called Broadway In Chicago. Basically, if it's playing in Chicago, it's already played on broadway (thus the name). Yes, it may be a pre-broadway try-out spot for many "destined for broadway shows" but there is no category for musical theatre in Boston or L.A. Just something that might come in handy later. --omtay38 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be fairly easy to argue for. We keep Broadway and the West End categories because they have objective entry criteria and they're useful groupings, and productions on either of those stages represent the highest level of the art. We ditch all the others (and I mean all of them) because they do not have objective criteria and their utility is minimal. Unfortunately, you can't form a coherent argument if you try and keep "American musical", because there's no particular reason (other than US-centrism) that that category is any more useful/important/objective than any of the others. Happy‑melon 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So, should we keep Off-Broadway, as well? If we're keeping Broadway and WE as being the pinnacle of English-language theatre, then it doesn't make much sense to keep it. And, I assume that the criteria for inclusion in the categories is by where it FIRST appeared, not whether or not it EVER appeared there? —  MusicMaker5376 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Off Broadway is slightly outside the box in this regard, so you might be able to keep it if you tried hard enough. On the contrary, however, the inclusion criterion should be having ever played there. Otherwise it completely invalidates the purpose of the category - to collect musicals that have reached the pinnacle of English-language theatre. Let's be honest, any criterion which does not place Wicked, Cats and Phantom of the Opera in the group "Pinnacle of English-language theatre" has some awkward questions to answer :D. Happy‑melon 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let's propose these for deletion?

I'll do it, but will wait for consensus and such.

--omtay38 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

that looks like a good start to me. <manic glint>BURN THEM!!</manic glint> :D. Happy‑melon 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
BRING IT! I'm wondering, though, if we should consider Chicago separately from the rest of the nomination? —  MusicMaker5376 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Meh, they're all being deleted for the same reason. My text will read something to the likes of "These templates are too general and do not assist in navigation. Is a musical classified by the nationality of its authors? Where its played? Where its about? There are too many variables bla bla bla". For chicago musicals, I could make the argument "should the musical Chicago be included there? It's based on chicago but did not play there originally? " I bet the CfDers will be alright with all of them together.
I'll wait till sometime later tonight, probably around 1:00 wikipedia time (i always forget what zone it is) and then I'll put up the CfD.--omtay38 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but the last time I looked at Chicago (musical) it had the WP Chicago tag on it. I think that's what pissed me off so much about Wicked.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm going to set up a subpage with all of our discussion on categories here. You might want to link to it in the CfD. —  MusicMaker5376 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They've been nominated

Weigh in here. --omtay38 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And exactly what alternate method do you propose to meet the absolutely non-negotiable requirement that titles like The Drowsy Chaperone, Billy Bishop Goes to War, Anne of Green Gables - The Musical and Starmania be reflected in a subcategory of Category:Theatre in Canada? This is not trivial; Category:Theatre in Canada is simply not doing its job properly if those articles aren't a part of it. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
For whom is this a non-negotiable requirement? Perhaps you should take the time to read the rationale presented here. —  MusicMaker5376 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
For whom is it either negotiable or unimportant? I hereby invite you to explain to me how The Drowsy Chaperone, Billy Bishop Goes to War, Anne of Green Gables - The Musical and Starmania are somehow not essential topics within Category:Theatre in Canada. Good luck. And for what it's worth, that rationale really doesn't even come close to answering my question — all I see is about fifty different variations on "we should delete this because I don't like it", and nothing that even comes close to acknowledging that national theatre categories have an equally legitimate need to be met here. You're looking at it from the perspective of what's easiest within this project, and you've frankly failed to take into account that this isn't a walled garden of topics that only belong to this project — you're missing the fact that many of the "musicals by nationality" category serve very real needs within the "Theatre by nationality" tree. If you take Category:Canadian musicals off Billy Bishop Goes to War, for example, then that article has to be added to Category:Canadian plays instead, because it's a historically and culturally critical topic in Canadian theatre which cannot be isolated from that category tree. Similarly, musicals like Keating!, Priscilla Queen of the Desert and The Boy from Oz cannot be isolated from the Category:Theatre in Australia category, nor The White Horse Inn and Elixier from Category:Theatre in Germany. But that kind of addition simply recreates the problem you think you're solving here; it just shifts the battleground into "Plays by nationality" instead. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
To answer your original question -- what do you suggest to replace it? -- I suggest you let your eyes drift centimeters below the line below. —  MusicMaker5376 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I don't think we need to justify ourselves to someone who is obviously concerned only with the categorization of 14 articles, whereas we're concerned with the categorization of a couple hundred. Thank you for your input. —  MusicMaker5376 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
My concern is ensuring that Category:Theatre in Canada — and, by extension, the other theatre-by-nationality categories as well — is properly structured and organized. I'd be fascinated to hear how that's an unimportant concern. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You really enjoy putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? I didn't say your concern wasn't important; I implied that your concern isn't looking at the situation globally. You're trying to justify the existence of ONE category that contains 14 articles. Our problem is trying to organize the several hundred articles on musicals on WP. We're trying to find a way to acheive that end that will be logical and take into account ALL of the hundreds of articles. Not just the 14 that you seem to care about. In that vein, your concerns are a mere drop in the bucket.
Instead of being angry and acting like a petulant child, why don't you try to help us rectify the situation? All you seem to want to do is make noise. —  MusicMaker5376 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, because nothing conveys "your input is important" like dismissing it as a trivial and "petulant" rant that doesn't merit a response to "justify" why it's not being taken seriously. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If I didn't think it merited a response, believe me, I wouldn't have responded. You're still just making noise; so far your input hasn't been useful. Do you intend to help? —  MusicMaker5376 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another cat....

I noticed Category:Musicals by author which contains one category Category:Musicals by Truman Capote which contains one article House of Flowers (musical). Now, the obvious overcategorization notwithstanding, should we just get rid of the two categories or should we persue this as a logical categorization? If we do, the renaming to "Musicals by composer", "Musicals by lyricist", and "Musicals by bookwriter" would probably be beneficial. Frankly, though, I would rather we just categorized everything by year and let that be the end of it. —  MusicMaker5376 19:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also Category:Compositions by Andrew Lloyd Webber (which seems to keep being renamed - songs/works/compositions...). I guess this makes a certain amount of sense, given that he has not just worked on musicals. Gershwin has the same. Generally, though, it should be clear from the composer's article what he's worked on - the categorising is going a bit far. So, yes, MM, I agree: just cat by years, except for those musicals that fall into a composer's (much) broader range of work. (That made more sense in my head than when I typed it). Dafyd (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with all. --omtay38 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Stephen Schwartz has worked in television, films, etc., and Stephen Sondheim has worked in film. Most musical composers do more than just musicals. I think it makes sense for the Gershwins to have their cat, but not as much for Webber -- really the only non-musical things in that cat is Amigos Para Siempre (which, imho, is one of the worst pieces of music ever written....) and Requiem (Webber). In all the discussion of musicals by nationality, maybe it makes sense to categorize them by creative team, and have Category:British musical composers or Category:Latvian musical lyricists? This would solve the problem of defining a nationality for the musical, but allow someone to peruse, say, Category:American musical composers. —  MusicMaker5376 02:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Chicago Musicals

Category:Chicago musicals had been removed from it's original nomination and has now been re-nominated here. Please vote as you see fit. --omtay38 02:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that one angry editor can't come along and do that.... I'm restoring the category to the discussion. —  MusicMaker5376 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've made this, the middle-earth portal had it and i've found it very handy. Anyway, every single page that was tagged as being under the musical theatre scope (until yesterday) is listed. If new pages are tagged they have to be added to THE LIST. :) --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice! —  MusicMaker5376 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
<humor>You know what we should do? We should get a bot to go through that list and FORCIBLY add our tag twice a week!</humor> —  MusicMaker5376 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
<jumping on the humor bandwagon>I can do that!</jumping on the humor bandwagon> --omtay38 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Love "The List!"

You may wish to comment on a proposed recategorisation of theatre companies

You may wish to comment at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_9#Category:Theatre_companies_by_country Kbthompson (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

International representation

In view of the various discussions about musical nationality and systemic bias, I got thinking about quite how representative this WikiProject is of the world as a whole. I'm not sure, obviously, but I get the impression that we're mainly based in the US... with a few (me included) from the UK. Would that be a fair analysis? Not that this should stop us from being unbiased and representative, but it might be something to bear in mind... - Dafyd (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Funny enough: one of the changes that was made in order to encourage more thinking about musicals outside of the US and UK was to add the country cats.  :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Question of ignorance: Is there much of a "Musical Theatre Scene" outside of the US and the UK? (i.e. perhaps we're simply representing what exists?) --omtay38 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a section about it near the bottom of the musical theatre article. Take a look. Also, look here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lover's Series

What is this? Is it notable? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert notability, so it's speediable. —  MusicMaker5376 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Random thought....

I don't know if anyone else is aware -- and I wasn't until about a month ago -- of this interesting quirk of the wiki software. If you put a pipe right before the last brackets, the result will be the title of the page without the dab parenthesis. For example [[Pippin (musical)|]] yields Pippin. It doesn't matter if you use it or not, it'll just save a couple of bytes and a second or two. It definitely comes in handy for us, and wanted to make sure everyone knew about it. —  MusicMaker5376 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an established feature, although it's not very well documented. It's actually a code expansion a bit like tildes for signatures: if you edit again you'll see that the link has been expanded. It can also be used to strip prefixes: [[mw:Help:Templates|]] is expanded to Help:Templates. Useful trick, as you say. Happy‑melon 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scenes

I think we should break down musicals t the scenes - Melbrooksfan101 talk 05:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Melbrooksfan. In August of 2006 (i.e. a while ago) this project developed an Article Structure for Musical Theatre articles. In this structure it states the following regarding the synopsis:

Divided by acts, the synopsis should be long enough to accurately convey the story-line, the main characters, and the main musical numbers, but need not be overwhelmingly long or detailed.

Breaking down a musical by scene would (most likely) be including far to much detail than required on Wikipedia
Also unless one could find a credible, online source for the actual scene break down of a particular musical (say, Young Frankenstein for example) then any scene breakdown would be considered original research and would be quickly changed back.
Hope this has been of some assistance! Happy Editing! --omtay38 05:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, except in cases where a musical lacks a continuous storyline and is organized as a series of separate vignettes, a scene list is not notable information and would merely add unnecessary headings. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

the Engineer wants to be a FA

Jonathan Pryce is a featured article candidate. I'll try and find more info and expand, but i need some help with the copyediting since my english is not really "featured" quality.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

BroadwayWorld.com

Just a heads-up: BroadwayWorld.com seems to have been reported to WP:ANI as a link-spammer, and bots are going through articles removing all reference to the site. It's not all that clear to me why the links are already being removed, as the discussion seems to be at the "let's discuss this" stage. As BroadwayWorld.com is an important, verifiable reference source for most of our articles, it might be worth adding to the discussion, seeing if there's a way around without blacklisting the site for good. - Dafyd (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here and alerting us to it. I wish that, before they blocked links to websites entirely, they would leave a message at the project talk page so that the question could be better discussed. This has happened in many articles that I edit, especially in the WP:G&S project. What should we do in the future when we notice valuable links being deleted? It may be that some editor misused links to the website, but that doesn't mean that the website it no good. Is it permanently blocked? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we can put back the necessary Broadwayworld.com links. Betacommand agreed not to delete them on his talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Roméo et Juliette, de la Haine à l'Amour

Help! This article is a mess. I just added our project tag to it and deleted scads of non-notable cast and crew info, but could a couple people take a pass at the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I think I'm blind. —  MusicMaker5376 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another R&J musical that was not tagged: Giulietta e Romeo (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that's not an opera? Judging from the number of songs, their titles sound like first lines, and the fact that it's always presented in Italian makes me think that it might be something more for the Opera project. —  MusicMaker5376 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Italian Wiki calls it a "commedia musicale", which, of course, translates directly to "musical comedy", but thats what they call all musicals. My limited knowledge of Italian (almost exclusively pasta dishes and musical dynamics, with a liberal smattering of swear words...) didn't help too much. —  MusicMaker5376 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The cast is meant to be teenagers, a factor against counting it an opera. Its logo calls it an opera popular, which is what Les Mis is, sorta.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Teenagers can't sing opera? I agree, tho. —  MusicMaker5376 16:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Untagged musicals

It looks like a bunch of these musicals are not tagged. Can someone take a look?: Category:2007 musicals. Maybe others can be found by looking at the recent musicals by year cats. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a project tag to all 2006 and 2007 musicals. This was the tag you were talking about right? Anyway, i've also added them to THE LIST.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Musicals based on novels

This is a new category. Is it a useful category? I leave it to you category experts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy to classify. Useful in organization. I say it looks alright. --omtay38 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't care much whether it stays or goes, but I can forsee problems with this category. For example, it was placed on the article on the Sound of Music, which is not based on a "novel" but an "autobiography". Are all of the articles so far tagged only based on a novel, or are they based "in part" on a novel and partially on a film (for example: State Fair (musical) and 42nd Street (musical))--and should that matter? Then there's South Pacific which is based on short stories. And, of course: why only musicals? Oh well, perhaps I'm over-thinking and over-analyzing this. Happy Friday. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Gah! It gets better: Pipe Dream was based on the unfinished (I guess unpublished) novel "Sweet Thursday", as recounted here: [2]--include or not in this category. The tip of the iceberg?JeanColumbia (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think if it's in Category:Musicals based on films and Category:Musicals based on novels simultaneously, that's okay. I think it's okay if short stories finagle their way in -- unless we want to change the cat to Category:Musicals based on previously-existing works of fiction.... Maybe these cats should have a parent of Category:Musicals by source material. We could also add Category:Musicals based on non-fiction or something like that (Evita, Fiorello!, etc....) —  MusicMaker5376 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What about "Musicals based on written works" ? Mark E (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that would encompass non-fiction and poetry, as well. I think we're good with just "novels". We should probably also have Category:Musicals based on plays, too. —  MusicMaker5376 17:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And we can do without the one-article category of Category:Musicals based on paintings.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Sound of Music, that probably shouldn't be in the novel cat. It would be apropos in Category:Musicals based on non-fiction, though. —  MusicMaker5376 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hairspray Character List

Added a character list to Hairspray (musical) in the same format as the one at Wicked. Please change the Character descriptions if you can think of anything better, im not the most imaginitive person when it comes to things like this lol.Mark E (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. It's not easy to encapsulate an entire character in one sentence. —  MusicMaker5376 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, but the plot section has only three sentences. Can you expand it? It doesn't make sense to me to have more information in the character descriptions than in the plot or synopsis section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep im gonna hopefully be doing abit of work on the article. I have seen Hairspray twice now since it opened in London so will be working on the plot next.Mark E (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)81.109.219.1 (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Right I have done the plot synopsis now, could possibly be padded out abit more but the basic story is there. If anyone could add some pics that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Good! The article is certainly coming along. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Starlight Express... again....

If anyone cares to put in their two cents regarding the second song list... in GERMAN... on Starlight Express, by all means, be my guest.... —  MusicMaker5376 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BURN IT!!!! MWAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!! </manic glint> Yes, I think that can probably go :D. Happy‑melon 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you could, please, weigh in over there.... Pyro.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice Parts

So I reverted some addition of voice parts because they were un-cited (and probably WP:OR). On second thought, I wondered what our opinion was on the inclusion of voice parts within an article. Thoughts? --omtay38 20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, even when they're cited they get changed incessantly. (Look thru the histories of Les Miserables (musical) and Wicked (musical).) We probably shouldn't advocate omitting information simply because it's difficult to maintain, but the average reader (even the average singer) doesn't understand the difference between mezzo-soprano, contralto, and alto. If they're cited, I say leave them, uncited, BURN THEM, but, I'd say that we not actively add them to articles. And, if they are cited, I'd say that we revert any changes to them not supported by the source without discussion. —  MusicMaker5376 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what I think about Voice Parts. I also saw a recently-added section on "Voice Range" in Oklahoma!, unreferenced. Thoughts: 1)even if they are referenced, do they add anything to the understanding of the show/music/performer; 2)are they the same for every production of the show (that is, don't they sometimes change them for a subsequent performer)?; 3) I am totally ignorant about the voice range, so to tell me that character X is a tenor has no meaning--am I in the minority in wanting to then know how "tenor" enhances the score/character/or even the choice of the actor; 4)are Voice Parts more important in some musicals than in others (for example, do we care what Voice Part "Henry Higgins" or "Roxie" is? But Yes, we do care in "Porgy and Bess"). Overthinking for sure. But, I agree in general with MusicMaker5376. JeanColumbia (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should generally leave out voice parts, unless the musical is very specific about voice parts, and no one ever moves keys around, like for the more operatic/operetta-ic ones. However, I like including a list of the principal characters, followed by the names of who played them in the original B'way or West End cast and info about notable replacements in a long run. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful to some people to list vocal ranges for the principals in musicals. If someone is considering auditioning for a particular role, having that knowledge would help them decide if they could handle the range. Obviously, some songs are transposed for the performer in some productions, but citing the written vocal range is useful.Thomprod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps better than listing voice parts would be to list vocal ranges (i.e. the G3 to F5 or the like See Note). These are unchanging among the original parts and there is less room for interpretation (i.e. well I sang this part and i'm a tenor but it's listed as bass). Thoughts? --omtay38 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't really unchanging. I know, for instance, that the School Edition of Les Mis has a much lower range for Valjean ("Bring Him Home", for instance, is drastically transposed). They change things from the original production to the rented material all the time.
Jean, for some roles, it is of some importance. Heroes are tenors. Ingenues are sopranos. Generally. People who understand that will make those connections. But, honestly, not many people know that and it's not like we can take the time to explain it.
I'm torn, frankly. —  MusicMaker5376 03:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the C4 to G5 designation, I don't know if that's necessarily going to help anyone. I think more people have heard the term "tenor" than would know what those combinations meant. Frankly, I don't even know what they mean. (Not saying that I know everything, but I've rarely encountered them as a musician.) If we're going to have ranges like that, I would prefer that they be notated. —  MusicMaker5376 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be omitted because what different people class as being in certain ranges depends on things. I can comfortable sing a G and wouldn't class myself as a tenor - for that youd need atleast the B really. Stageagent which alot of articles source from can be misleading, for example Wicked, it lists both Boq and Fiyero as Tenors yet their notes are not anywhere near the high end of the tenor register. Also lists Roger from rent as Baritone and saying up to the A flat which some people would consider baritone and others tenor. Scrap em.Mark E (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mark E. Look at today's change to Wicked, where someone decided that the Wizard (originally sung by Joel Grey) is a baritone rather than a tenor. If you look at the score, the role is probably some kind of high-ish baritone, but the voice part classification is not helpful to readers. There are plenty of sites on the internet that give audition advice and can be linked in the external links section. I suggest that we generally leave the vocal range issue there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Scrap 'em. —  MusicMaker5376 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

List of musical theatre productions

I raised some objections to this list about six months ago, and it would seem that none have been addressed:

  • There are NO objective criteria for inclusion: "historically significant or have achieved unusual popularity or critical acclaim" is a little... idiotic...
  • It is an unadulterated mess

If we can find some reason to keep this and make it a viable list, I won't nominate it for deletion. But, right now, it's the worst thing to carry our tag. —  MusicMaker5376 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As MusicMaker knows, I love this list and find it extremely useful. However, the list could easily be revised into the following parts:

  • 1. Longest-running musicals on Broadway and the West End (this part is already there);
  • 2. Musicals that have won Best Musical at the Tonys or the Olivier Awards (these are already there but have no subheading); and
  • 3. Musicals prior to the first year of the Tony awards that set long-run records.

I could re-organize the list in this fashion, and then the criteria would be clear. Would you want to rename it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The longest-running musicals are not necessarily organized by any source-supported criteria. The list tries to conflate the Broadway and West End runs in a way that baffles me. I know we're trying to reduce the B'way-WE rivalry, but I don't think this helps. It needs to be organized more intuitively which, if that means separating the list into the longest runs on either side of the Atlantic, so be it.
I'd think that shows that have won Best Musical should be handled at the pages for the individual awards. I don't think that anyone looking for shows that have won best musical would come to this page first -- they'd just go to the page for the award. If that means creating an article for the Oliviers, then we should do that.
The inclusion for shows that set long-run records before the Tonys seems a little capricious.
As it sits, the name seems a little redundant of List of musicals and I think the list is trying to do too many things.
Why don't we organize it as such: a top-ten list of the current longest runners, separated into Broadway and West End. Then, we can list the ones that aren't in that list that were longest runners at one point and when they held the "title". We could also have a section on the longest runners in various other cities (Chicago, Toronto, Boston, Melbourne, etc.). We can rename it List of longest-running musicals. In the "See also" section, we can have links to the Tony Award page and the Olivier Award page.
Thoughts? —  MusicMaker5376 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to separating the list of longest runs on Broadway and the West End, and I have no objection to renaming the list whatever you like, but other than that I would vote to leave the rest of the list alone. Thanks --Broadwaygal (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? Is the rest of the list serving a purpose that I don't see? —  MusicMaker5376 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Broadwaygal. I use this list frequently as a quick reference when I need to find a list of extremely important/popular musicals from various eras. I have not done the research to see what Ganzl or other experts consider the most important musicals of all times, but I bet such experts do have something like a list of 50 greatest musicals or something similar. I do know that John Kenrick's site considers most of them to be of great historic importance. Also, in the UK, they have a radio poll of most popular musicals, but this is more than just the most popular ones today; it also reflects some that were extremely popular in earlier eras. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the list is an important tool because it keeps all of the most popular/most notable shows in one place. It serves as a reference tool when you want to find out specific information, compare show information or find out which shows replaced others as longest running etc. It's one stop shopping for an historical survey of Musicals. Thanks Broadwaygal (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but thinking that both arguments boil down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. I don't see the utility in a list that all of six articles link to. I don't think it's a likely search target. I think List of longest-running musicals is a likely search target. Again, you seem to forget that articles exist for readers, not for editors. If someone wants to know about Tony winners, they're going to go there.
The "Nation's Most Essential Musicals" in the UK is an interesting thought. Can we use that somehow?
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I would like to see what other memebers of the project think. —  MusicMaker5376 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wicked (musical)

An anonymous editor keeps putting in an unreferenced "orchestration" section. It seems to me that most of the information in it is information that we decided to exclude from our "article structure" guideline. Some of the orchestration info related to the album might be added there if it were referenced. Please review and delete/edit as appropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd put this particular section (orchestrations) in the article on the album: Wicked (album) since that is specifically what the material is about. A conversation with the anon. editor might be nice, too. (A while ago I decided not to touch the Wicked article (s) since you were in the process of tryng to get it to FA (?) and I did not want to mess anything up--I still am holding to that and so will not make any edits.)
I have no comment on the general issue of inclusion/exclusion of orchestrations in an article; they probably could be useful/informative/important in some cases, not at all in others. I don't follow these discussions very closely so I have no knowledge of previous conversations/decisions about orchestrations. JeanColumbia (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My own thoughts regarding orchestrations is that they change too frequently to really be of encyclopedic value. What you get from the rental company is not always what you hear on the CD, and what you hear on the CD is not always what they do in the theatre. Generally, they should be viewed as production-specific and, as such, unencyclopedic. —  MusicMaker5376 18:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammys

I'm wondering how we should consider a Grammy for Best Musical Show Recording (or whatever it's called). I definitely don't think it should get infobox status, but what about the award box at the end? There are succession boxes for the Tony Award "big three" -- Best Musical, Score, and Book. Should the Grammy be in there, too? I ask, of course, because someone added it to Spring Awakening (musical) -- I don't know if the intent is to create all of the succession boxes or not. Is this something we should support? —  MusicMaker5376 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favor of succession boxes for awards. I wouldn't mind listing it in the awards section, and of course it should be mentioned in the Recordings section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Check out this "information". It seems non-notable to me, and I deleted it once, but it's back in. please check out this diff and delete if you agree. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave it in. It explains why the song is known as Liverpool's anthem, which is how it is best known in the UK (most people would laugh at you if you told them it was from a musical). Sure, it should be referenced, but I think it does add to the content about "You'll Never Walk Alone". - Dafyd (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what about the fact that other clubs sing the song? Why did that get changed? And do we need so much about it? Shouldn't all this detail should go in the clubs' articles, not in the musical's article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. The info is already (verbatim) in the song's article. I've removed it from Carousel, but I guess it will return... Is it really worth making a fuss about? It's only a footnote, after all..! - Dafyd (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

A user removed the synopsis from this article, citing that it was too long. It was too long -- it was one of my first contribs to WP. I'm tempted to revert it, as a long synopsis is preferable to no synopsis at all, but would rather see if someone here agrees with me and let them do it. —  MusicMaker5376 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I put it back in. Please shorten it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New How-to book on editing Wikipedia

Check out this new book about Wikipedia:

This shows newbies how to use Wikipedia, avoiding the pitfalls of trial and error, and has lots of tips for experienced editors. If you know of someplace where references like this ought to be listed, please copy it there. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please... when's the second edition coming out? And the third? Nice idea... shame it'll be hopelessly out of date in a year :D. Happy‑melon 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Why do you scoff at it? It is the first How-to manual about Wikipedia that I am aware of. Perhaps it will help some new editors to avoid some of the pitfalls that we all faced. Wiki-software is almost exactly the same as it was two years ago when I joined, and other changes that I have seen in that two years are relatively modest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. I just wandered into the table of contents, and actually almost all of what it covers is both very useful and relatively static. There are still a few chapters that I think will age quickly, but perhaps claiming it will all be out of date in a year is a little pessimistic. Personally I don't think there's any substitute for getting out there and poking around yourself - Wikipedia's durability means that the best (and often only) way to see if something is possible is to actually try it. But I'm sure we can all agree that Wikipedia would be a better place if we never had to mark a page with {{db-g2}}. In terms of advertising it, I'm not sure if there's anywhere we're allowed to advertise something that's not associated with the foundation, but you might want to drop it on a few village pumps or talk to the welcoming committee. Happy‑melon 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wicked (musical) again

There seems to be some confusion in the last few edits concerning Dr Dillamond and flipping over the blackboard. Could someone who is very familiar with the script (or preferably has a script) please take a careful look, please? This diff shows the changes that I reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP's edits are factually correct... but we really don't need this sort of trivia in a plot summary that is already pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable length-wise. Happy‑melon 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest shortening the synopsis by eliminating the introductory paragraph, which is a summary of the plot summary, and substantially repeats material in the LEAD section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done that - I've moved the plot synopsis synopsis to the Lead, and edited it a bit to make it fit better. It's still, I feel, rather clumsy - if someone could take a quick glance over it, I'd be grateful. -- Dafyd (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I slimmed down that paragraph a little more. I think it's not bad now. I agree with the person who wrote on the talk page that the article needs a short section, or at least a separate paragraph, describing the differences between the book and the musical. There's one sentence about it in the Development secton, but I bet it could use more discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A worry I have about a section describing the differences between book and novel is that it very quickly becomes original research. There are, from what I can tell, very few "good" references available. One of the best I've found is [(link blocked) this], but I'm not convinced how encyclopaedic we can call it.
Thinking about it, there might be something in the Grimmerie - I'll take a look next time I'm home. -- Dafyd (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That source looks like a good start. Also, maybe some of the early reviews discuss differences between show and book? Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maude Adams???

Stage actress Maude Adams was my grandfather's cousin, making me her cousin two times removed. I have noticed on her discussion page that she has been added to the mucical theater project. Despite the fact that I am a somewhat close relative of hers, I am not an expert on her by any means. This being said, I am really wondering how she has been included in the project.

I suspect she is here because she was the origingal Peter Pan. What confuses me greatly is that the 1905 original play was not a musical. If I'm right, Peter Pan was not "musicalized" until the 1953 Mary Martin version. Maude retired in 1916 and to the best of my knowledge (which I admit can be slim in areas) she never appeared in what we today would consider to be a musical. Most of her plays were light society comedies or whimsical James Barrie plays, of which Pan was just one of many she perfromed in.

So while I am certainly not "opposed" to Maude being in the musical theater project, I do sort of wonder how she got here.Bgrin (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that Adams was not a musical theatre actress. Does anyone mind if we remove the project tag? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If she wasn't a musical theatre actress, I'd say it's a no-brainer.... —  MusicMaker5376 15:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed our tag. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to IBDB she appeared in at least two musicals, A Midnight Bell and The-Merry-Go-Round, so maybe this is why the tag was added in the first place and not because of Peter Pan.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 12:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that unless a substantial or prominent part of an person's career was in musicals, we shouldn't tag the article, and leave it to other projects. Adams appears to have spend the bulk of her career, and her most prominent roles in straight theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First West End Musical

Was reading the musical theatre article and saw that "The Black Crook" was considered to be the first proper musical, but this was on Broadway. Does anyone know what the first proper musical was on the Westend. CheersMark E (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First, remember that some theatre historians consider The Beggar's Opera and other Ballad Operas as the first musicals, and that was more than a century before The Black Crook. The Black Crook played in England after it played on Broadway. But in those days the West End had been showing musical burlesques since 1831 at the Olympic Theatre and by the 1850s was also showing the operettas of Jacques Offenbach and then others. By the 1860s, Burlesque and operetta dominated the British musical theatre stage in Britain. Gilbert and Sullivan and other comic operas, such as Dorothy then competed with the Gaiety Theatre, London Burlesques in Britain until the early 1890s. In America, we had Edward Harrigan and Tony Hart, but the Gilbert and Sullivan operas were also very popular in America. Then American musical theatre writing went into decline, and the British invented Edwardian musical comedy, which was far more popular than anything produced in America in the 1890s. Edwardian musical comedies, and also European operettas ruled the musical theatre stage through World War I, although Victor Herbert and the Princess Theatre writers in America were very productive. For more information, read the musical theatre article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you know the dates for when The Black Crook was first performed in London? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.45.37 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

December 23, 1872, but it was an opera bouffe version based on the same French source material, with new music by Frederic Clay and Georges Jacobi, adapted by Harry Paulton. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wicked (musical)

It seems to me that the recent changes to the article are merely to create WP:OVERLINK. Many of the links added have already been linked and others are dates or other information that I don't think should be linked. If you agree, please make appropriate changes at the article and, if you have an opinion one way or another, join the talk page discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam

I just StumbledUpon this site, ch-ch-ch-check it out.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Comden and Green to be deleted

This image is marked for deletion. Can anyone find the source information and save it? Image:Comden&Green.JPG -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mamma Mia diff

I noticed this diff by a single-edit anon. I can't tell if it's vandalism or a good idea, so I'll leave it for someone else to judge.... —  MusicMaker5376 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Zoot Suit: play or musical?

Could someone look into whether Zoot Suit should be listed as a play or as a musical? I thought the Tony Awards considered it a play.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's tough. The IBD lists it as a play and it was nominated for a Tony for Best Featured Actor in a Play, but the show does include musical "numbers". A majority (if not all) of the sources I found through a Google search, however, refer to it as a play despite the musical elements. Even the book compilation that it is included in is called Zoot Suit and Other Plays. So I say play. María (habla conmigo) 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That confirms what I thought. There is music, since much of the action takes place at clubs, but no real production numbers. Should the page be moved back to "play"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would vote yes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have the default Monobook skin there should be a button at the top of the article (right after "history") that says "move". Push it, and write the article's new name. See also Help:Moving a page. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The page has been moved! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hi just wondering if someone might be able to help? The I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series) now has full details of all the final twelve contestants for the role of Nancy. However, a story arose a few days ago in the British media about one of the "Nancys", Francesca Jackson - about her and Denise Van Outen, one of the shows panel, being friends? Is it relevant to the article? On the Any Dream Will Do (TV series) article there is a Criticism section. It has been in the national UK press and there are plenty of sources online that can be used, but I wasn't sure whether or not to add anything on the article or not so any advice would be welcome. I've also asked this on the articles discussion page. Thank you♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC) *Sorted now, thanks*

Vandal

Beware: This vandal has been adding spurious information to musicals articles, usually containing the name Mark Lull: Special:Contributions/97.92.193.247. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Songbook (musical)

Songbook won the 1979 Laurence Olivier Award, but it doesn't have an article. Can anyone put one together? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perchance to Dream (operetta)

I've suggested this be merged into Perchance to Dream (musical). It's actually a 'musical romance'. Thanks. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. One of the articles had little content, so I merged them as Kleinzach suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A Hairspray Fun Fact List

I run a Hairspray message board with the help of the shows producing office. We have a closed read-only topic including Hairspray Fun Facts which span technical specs, plot holes and other interesting bits of information- the information included is either first hand information or taken from Hairspray printed information such as the script, coffee table book, etc. A great deal of it is not noted anywhere else on the Wikipedia page. I think it would be a great addition to the Hairspray page but I'm not entirely clear if it falls within the rules of Wikipedia. Rather than post it and have it deleted from the Hairspray page, I was told it might be best to get an opinion here. If its not acceptable now but would be with some changes, I would be open to hearing the edits I need to make. http://www.runboard.com/besprayed.f2.t151 24.193.154.242 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)christina

This is certainly a very interesting collection of facts, some of which gave me more than a bit of a smile :D. Unfortunately, however, WP:TRIVIA is our guiding principle for content like this, and it is pretty unfavourable on lists of miscellaneous information. Several of these factoids could probably be integrated into the prose of various sections of the article, but adding such a lot of material as a miscellaneous list won't win you any friends in the recent-changes patrol. You did exactly the right thing asking here, though. Happy‑melon 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Im glad the list made you smile. I wanted to clarify, it wasn't my intention to copy and paste the list in its own section, I was thinking it should be included as an external link, but even then I dont know if that would be frowned upon. I did read the trivia guidelines but I was still unclear. In writing the fun facts we went to great lengths to ensure we went beat by beat through the show following the scenes in order, hopefully providing thoughtful content, not merely a random list. It was just easier to read in bullet point format. Feel free to pull information from it if it helps you, then I suppose my list would be the reference? Whatever works, just putting the info out there. :) 24.193.154.242 (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)christina
Again, unfortunately, an external link to your site would probably fall foul of our external links policy, as links to forums or fansites, however high-quality, are generally frowned upon. If any of the facts are integrated into the article, however, we would certainly cite your page as the reference. Thanks for making this source available. Happy‑melon 09:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a great list, and undoubtedly a great resource. Thanks! —  MusicMaker5376 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I do hope it helps. I also noticed on the Hairspray page some other things that seem to be incomplete/missing, but maybe there is a reason. The Las Vegas production was a an abbreviated 90 minutes long, and this format was used again when the non Equity tour, which is missing from the productions list, played at Harrahs in Atlantic City August 2006, so its been dubbed the 'casino version'. I'd be happy to help with info on what was cut if its helpful. Also the First National tour saw the return of original Tracy, and Tony Winner, Winokur and original Link, Morrison for the Los Angeles stop of the tour, which some consider notable appearances. Perhaps these thoughts are now more appropriate for the Hairspray talk page. Sorry for being so long winded! 24.193.154.242 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)christina
Feel free to be bold! Just as some words of direction, we try to stay away from bulleted lists, preferring prose. Add what you want to the page -- the nice thing about Wikipedia is that, if you mess up, someone will be along to clean it up! —  MusicMaker5376 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, please add citations to published sources for any new information that you add. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Spammer/vandal?

It looks to me like User:71.225.255.20 has been adding a lot of linkspam and nonsense to musicals articles. Would someone take a look at his/her contribs and see if action is warranted? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's all spamming -- perhaps just a noob. Some of the edits added information -- just phrased vandal-like. Someone to keep your eyes on, but in the spirit of WP:AGF, unless the vandalism becomes blatant, hope that s/he may still become a valuable editor. —  MusicMaker5376 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, would you kindly try to give him/her some helpful advice? As far as I can tell, his/her edits to date have been entirely destructive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the contribs actually seem constructive; the last couple weren't great and the first few were a little suspect, but most in the middle were honest edits. There are a couple of vandal warnings on the talk page; I don't want to WP:BEANS him. Also, it might be a shared IP. Let's just keep our eyes on him. (Nice job with the edit summary, btw! Thanks!) —  MusicMaker5376 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of work?

I suppose this has been covered, but how do I notify others that I'm working on a page - either revising or creating anew? (I'm doing it in my sandbox so it won't be obvious until I'm done). The page is for the play of The Cocoanuts. I've left a note on the talk page, but is there somewhere on this project's site where I should indicate what I'm doing? -- kosboot (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a template that you can put on the top of the page to notify editors that there's a rewrite going on. I'll see if I can find it. —  MusicMaker5376 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There are Template:Inuse and Template:Underconstruction. You can check them both out, but, frankly, the last edit to that page was over two weeks ago. You'll probably be okay without the templates. —  MusicMaker5376 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a great help. - kosboot (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Archive_10&oldid=1253705688"