Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Bye Bye Birdie (musical)

There's a move discussion going at Talk:Bye Bye Birdie (musical) to determine if Bye Bye Birdie should be for the musical or disambig page. Feel free to way in on the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional character disambiguation

Please join the discussion regarding whether proper disambiguation is Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Fictional_character_disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

British musicals fans

Do any of you British musicals fans want to start a bio article on Jason Carr? He is a composer, musical director and orchestrator responsible for a bunch of musicals:

Cast lists & change of character names in productions

This is more to do with a play article, but my question applies to all forms of theatre articles. If in articles like this one character names change or actors that played several parts in one production, then in new productions they parts are grouped differently how do we handle it in article cast lists. Im trying to merge two separate tables and I'm a bit stuck.Blethering Scot 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, only the cast(s) from the original major-market productions should go in the table, and for subsequent productions and tours, only the notable players need be named, and they can be named in the narrative discussion of those particular productions. Alternatively, some FA articles do not contain the original cast list as a table, but merely list the notable players narratively, and then present a compact table showing the characters and notable historical cast members for all the productions, like so: Carousel (musical)#Principal roles and notable performers. That's the format that User:Wehwalt has used. If the roles are rewritten, maybe you can describe in the production section how the roles are re-assigned and just list the notable players there. Or, use a new row in the table for the new/rewritten roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Made in Dagenham Musical

Just wondering if any of my fellow collaborators would be willing to help out and do a critical reception section for this. As I've said in the past I am pretty rubbish at them. I have added and hidden the reviews here if anyone is interested in helping out.Blethering Scot 21:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone?Blethering Scot 21:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X. -- Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template for Deletion?

I don't think this template (concerning the TV show that auditioned Dorothys for Lloyd Webber's production of The Wizard of Oz) does anything useful -- all the information in it are contained in the article about the show and in the relevant category. If others agree, can someone please nominate it for deletion and then let us know so that we can comment? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Active?

Hey guys, I was wondering how active this WikiProject is? I noticed that the Collab of the Month isn't particularly clear on new possible suggestions and/or how long this one has been the CotM. Are such things still updated here? Thanks! Sixteennote (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not very active -- there are no longer any collaborations like that; the CotM has not been worked on for a few years. But from time to time, participants in the project discuss particular articles or things like the category tree for musicals. The most active members of the project currently work mostly in their own areas of particular interest. When I edit articles relating to musicals, I try to adhere to our longstanding Article Structure Guidelines, which I recommend that everyone use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, but thank you. Wonder if there'd be a way to revive it someday... Sixteennote (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Also have now, per guidelines, marked this project as Inactive on the main page. If anyone editing musical theater pages wishes to pursue reinvigorating this page, let me know! Sixteennote (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
What guidelines? I would not call it "inactive". Would you please show us what the definition of "inactive" is before tagging our project page? We need a WP:CONSENSUS to add such a tag. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
My bad, didn't realize, removing. Sixteennote (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Expand the scope of the MT WikiProject?

The current MT WikiProject focuses on musical theatre works. Is it appropriate to expand the project to either include, or reference how to include, musical theatre songwriters, actors, producers, and others?

As a relative Wikipedia newbie (in terms of submitting significant articles and edits), I'd find it very useful to have a centralized resource of best stubs, infoboxes, etc. to use when creating articles about rising musical theatre composers, lyricists, actors and more.

Thoughts? Is this the right place to provide that type of information or should it remain scattered across Wikipedia? Irelandkm (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the project already *does* include songwriters, actors, producers, etc. Here are some good examples of bio articles within the project: For an article on a composer/lyricist, see Noël Coward. Also, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, Guy Bolton and Stephen Sondheim are ok. For examples of MT actor bios, see Stanley Holloway, Elaine Paige and Bernadette Peters. There are lots of great articles about actors generally, such as Laurence Olivier. Note that bio articles do not *need* infoboxes -- they may be used if the editors working on an article agree that an infobox would be helpful in a particular article. See WP:INFOBOXUSE. Some Wikipedians (including me) think they are redundant and not generally helpful for MT bios, whereas they are often helpful for athletes and politicians. See WP:DISINFOBOX. This project had a consensus that infoboxes should be used in articles about musicals. By contrast, the Opera project and classical music folks both decided that opera articles and articles about classical music pieces should not have infoboxes, although, in all cases, the project consensus is only advisory. WP:INFOBOXUSE is the relevant guideline.
We have article structure guidelines for articles about musicals, as you know. I do not think that we need project-specific guidelines for bio articles, as it is pretty straight-forward: After the WP:LEAD section, which should contain an overview of the whole article, (1) tell about their life chronologically, starting with their parents, childhood and education, then their career, retirement and death; (2) next should be a section about their works, style, philosophy, technique, as applicable; (3) then a "reputation" section, discussing what critics, biographers and others have said about the person's work, personality and life; (4) a legacy/awards/honors section. Again, see Noël Coward. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

IBDB Template is Broken

How do I report that the previously working IBDB (Internet Broadway Database) template is now broken? -- Irelandkm (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates. Someone there should be able to help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dixie (song) FAR

I have nominated Dixie (song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Beth Malone

New BLP article stub needs expanding. One of the Tony nominated actresses that didn't have an article and appears notable enough for one.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a few formatting changes, added a few additional credits and references, but by no means is the article complete. (I'd like to see some reviews/quotes as to her work.) I don't know whether I'll get back to the article today, but maybe within a week or so.Flami72 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sam H. Harris (producer) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam H. Harris (producer) to be moved to Sam H. Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Larry Hochman

Hi guys! Could anyone help expand the Larry Hochman article? It's actually pretty short now, considering all the credits listed in the websites from the 'external links' section. Happy editing! --Bialytock&Bloom (talk)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Kinky Boots (musical) at WP:FAC

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kinky Boots (musical)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleared the entire GA Review backlog for Media and drama

  1. Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:MUSICALS.
  2. I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Media and drama, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
  3. I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
  4. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it -- as a way to pay it forward.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External Resource Show-Score.com

Hello. There is a new resource for theater fans called Show-Score.com. Like Rotten Tomatoes for movies or TripAdvisor for hotels, Show-­Score organizes information about all New York theater productions, ​from Broadway to Off­-Off-­Broadway, including cast information, showtimes and trailers. It collates all professional reviews for each production and generates an aggregate score for every show. It is also an online community for theater lovers and invites members to share their own reviews. Show-Score is the only site where you can find professional and fan reviews, production information, and ticketing information all in one place. Since I work for Show-Score, there is a clear conflict of interest in regards to me taking action on any Wiki pages, but I thought I’d bring Show-Score to your attention to be used as an external resource for the Musical Theater Project. We would also appreciate being considered as source in the “Critical Reception” section of individual show articles or in the footnote section of individual show show articles, like Kinky Boots. We've been covered by The New York Times, ABC News and several other media outlets. Thank you for your time and have a great day. --Ryula24 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This site should not be used as an External Link. That would be WP:LINKSPAM. There are usually articles that "round-up" reviews at Playbill and/or BroadwayWorld; certainly Playbill would be a more prestigious source for that purpose than a new site. It might have some archival value where one wants to see *all* the reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. I greatly appreciate your expertise. Show-Score contains reviews of Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway shows that aren't always covered by Playbill and/or BroadwayWorld. Further, while Playbill and BroadwayWorld have review round-ups, Show-Score has more information and a larger number of reviews than either of these sources. For "Hamilton," Playbill and BroadwayWorld each contain 20 reviews, whereas Show-Score has 52 critic reviews and nearly 1500 member reviews. We are a growing community of over 30,000 registered users and our aim is to be the largest repository of Broadway information for theater lovers. Again, thank you so much for your input. -- Ryula24 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point: your critics' review pages could be particularly useful for Off-Broadway shows where Playbill/BWW do not publish a roundup. Good luck with the website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Bacher

Since many of you have experience with wikipedia's music notability guidelines, I would appreciate comments and opinions here whatever they may be. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Concert version (opera)

User:Voceditenore had the brilliant idea of creating this article after questions by other readers came up about what a "concert version" was at DYK. My thinking is that the article should probably be moved to simply concert version and include content on musicals being performed in concert version as well (i.e. orchestras presenting musicals in concert like the New York Philharmonic). Please feel free to comment at Talk:Concert version (opera) and to contribute to expanding this stub. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. I've moved the article, per 4meter4's suggestion and, yes, input on the musical theatre side would be very welcome. Voceditenore (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

New articles on Hamilton songs.

I would really appreciate it if you could pop round and improve/copyedit/etc: Alexander Hamilton, The Schuyler Sisters, Satisfied, Wait For It, Say No To This, The Room Where It Happens, and It's Quiet Uptown.--Coin945 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Shuffle Along on Broadway

Has anyone seen Shuffle Along, or, the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed? If so, would you please flesh out the Synopsis section of the article with a more detailed summary of the plot? Shoot for about 700 words or so, if you can. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, and have no plans to get to it. Is it a requirement that one see the work in order to write about it?? If so, I will retire immediately from writing plots (although I do not write very many, anyway). How does the requirement in the article structure guidelines that says "The Synopsis should generally be prepared using the musicals' script as a primary source" fit in ?? So I guess the guideline of "between 800 and 1100 words" plot is no longer applicable?? (And good morning to you!) Flami72 (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Flami. No, certainly it is not required. If you can expand the plot section, please go ahead, by all means! I agree with the article structure guidelines, of course, that the script is the best source to use in summarizing plots. As to length, I also agree with the article structure guidelines' suggestion for optimal length; I was just trying to make it easier on whoever undertakes this initially. The article is also missing a critical reception section, just in case anyone wants to work on that. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Good, thanks for the clarifications! I may work on the critical reception section in the next week or so. I anticipate some Tony nominations, and I like to see what the critics have said. I doubt that I'll work on the plot. Flami72 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Ross Campbell (vocal coach)

This article about a singing teacher who specialises in musical theatre is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Campbell (vocal coach). Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The use of Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards on show articles

As discussed on Ssilvers's talk page here, I noticed the recent removal of content relating to the Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards on the following show articles: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Ssilver asked that I respond either at a show's talk or here. My concern is that it appears one user has made these wholesale edits, unilaterally and without consensus.

But more importantly, as has been noted by others, I am also concerned because the Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards are notable. Broadway casts solicit votes from their fans. Nominees attend the reception and awards ceremony. Productions proudly announce their wins on their official websites; and the results are widely published in sources like Playbill, the Theatre League, Entertainment Weekly and internationally reported. So the notion that an audience choice award is inherently "cruft" is curious. That would also dismiss the People's Choice Awards, the American Music Award, the Billboard Music Award, the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, etc. But for this project to reject this audience award - in the area of theatre - the only medium where the performers and audience are in live and immediate interaction, is frankly, best rebutted by a few recipients of the award. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a taste arbiter. I know you appreciate that your own view regarding the value of this award shouldn't matter. It meets every relevant notability threshold. So Ssilver, please reconsider these edits. X4n6 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The awards that I removed were mostly added by an IP recently. First of all, let's be clear. I removed Audience Choice Awards from the Awards tables of several articles about musicals. I have less objection to the information being mentioned in bio articles and have not removed any award information from a person's bio article. The reason that I removed the Audience Choice Awards is that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. It is a shame that some editors have insisted on taking up a large portion of the space in musical theatre articles with these bloated awards tables (this only started happening a few years ago), which would be better presented as a compact narrative paragraph instead. But even if we do not have the energy to resist the tablification(?) of the awards sections, at least we should trim these tables down to encyclopedic information. Audience awards and other fan voting are not encyclopedic with respect to musicals. As WP:NOT states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." By including trivia and fancruft, we bring discredit to this encyclopedia and clutter it up. The skill in writing a good encyclopedia article is to winnow down the content to include only key encyclopedic information. X4n6 asks about People's Choice Awards, American Music Award, Billboard Music Award and Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. None of these awards go on Musical theatre articles, so they are irrelevant. However, I will say that I really would prefer that these tables only include the three most prestigious national awards, like Tony Awards, Olivier Awards and Drama Desk awards, as well as the Theatre World Award. If a show did not play on B'way or the West End, then lesser awards may become more relevant, but once a show wins a bunch of Tonys, what encyclopedic value is added by noting that some well-known actor in it with a social media following also got an audience choice award nomination? Finally, just because something is notable enough to get its own article does not meant that it belongs, and must be mentioned, in all related articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as a wholly arbitrary and illusory standard. As there is no factual basis or precedent for the notion that an award is good enough to be listed with individual recipients, but it is not good enough to be listed with productions which are also award winners. While Wikipedia is not a fansite, per WP:NOT, NOT, also states, "Although some topics... may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this." Nor is it the medium for opinion editing as both WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NPOV confirm. And the concern that they were IP edits, ignores both WP:URIP2 and WP:IPDIS. Ssilver also entirely misses the point regarding People's Choice Awards, American Music Award, Billboard Music Award and Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. Like the Broadway.com Audience Choice Awards , they are audience awards. If Ssilver would like to make the argument that audience awards are valuable in every area of performance accept live theatre, I would want to why. And the suggestion that perhaps only "the three most prestigious national awards, like Tony Awards, Olivier Awards and Drama Desk awards, as well as the Theatre World Award" are included, perfectly illustrates the problem. It also eliminates the Obie Award, nationally, and dismisses important regional awards like the Helen Hayes Award, Joseph Jefferson Awards, Suzi Bass Award, etc. It also ignores that several shows that ultimately play on Broadway, started out-of-town, where regional theatre awards were often won. It would be a shame if readers could only find "the three most prestigious national awards." Again, that is wholly arbitrary and not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia is also not a Reader's Digest Condensed Book. And if, as I've already shown, award nominees, winners and reliable sources accept the value of this award, who are Wikipedians to challenge that? Especially unilaterally. Finally, the threshold this project requires is WP:Notability. Beyond that, it is useful to review WP:LISTCRITERIA, which says "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." These edits meet none of those criteria. X4n6 (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers here. Only the most prestigious awards should be used on these articles to avoid cluttering the page with too much information. A source that may seem notable to one editor may not seem so to another, but when we are talking about the Tony Awards, Olivier Awards, Drama Desk awards and the Theatre World Award we are all in agreement that these are notable. Jack1956 (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
When did we get into the business of making value judgments about the level of "prestige" we unilaterally attribute to awards? What policy supports that endeavor and how is it determined? As you pointed out, certain awards are "notable." The Razzies are hardly prestigious - but they are unquestionably notable. And that is the full extent of our responsibility. To report provable notability. Not to engage in entirely subjective value judgments. X4n6 (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
We are exactly in the business of making value judgments. An encyclopedia reports only the most important information, not all notable information. Indeed, "notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Therefore, our responsibility as editors is to make judgment calls about what information is most important and encyclopedic with respect to the particular topic that we are writing about. There are enough notable facts about, say, the United States, to fill many books. But the encyclopedia article about it must pick and choose the most important ones to present in an encyclopedic format. The Featured Articles about Carousel, South Pacific and The King and I show a much more compact way to do awards that is much more appropriate for a musical theatre article. Also, if a show is not on Broadway or in the West End, it won't be eligible generally for Tonys or Oliviers. In that case, Obies become relevant. One needs to keep in mind the particular show that we are writing about, and not be a robot, just throwing in the kitchen sink. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
We are in the business of being an encyclopedia, with a stated mission of objectively disseminating noteworthy and reliably sourced information from a neutral point of view. This neutrality is voided when anonymous users elect to supplant their own personal biases for well-established and long-standing industry standards. Nowhere does WP support that. The closest this project entertains, is the requirement for consensus, which these wholesale edits never obtained, nor have now. Nor are they attributed to any reliable source which supports a methodology that justifies them. There are also innumerable examples on this project where the principle of due weight was abused and misinterpreted. In this instance, there is nothing to suggest that this award, listed alongside other related awards, constitutes anything undue. And even if there were, it would have to be done on an article-by-article, case-by-case basis, not just invoked as a blanket cure all. These edits also presume readers are incapable of discerning the level of weight they wish to attribute to this award. Nor has any response ever been provided which explains, as noted above, why these awards are acceptable for inclusion in performers' articles, but not in show articles. That defies logic and the inherent contradiction is clear. If the awards are supposedly too insignificant for inclusion in a show article, then the award is just as insignificant for inclusion in a performer article. The award itself does not change contingent upon its recipient. The double standard is glaring. And yes, a well-sourced article here does confer notability, which justifies inclusion in other articles where applicable. Again, as was also noted above, per WP:LSC: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." These edits meet none of those criteria. And that criteria is definitive, as it is also reflective of policies, practices and guidelines across the spectrum of this project. This remains unchanged by any explanations provided here. We also need to finally correct the recurrent error that claims this award only applies to musical theatre - as much of the opposing argument has hinged upon this fallacy. The fact is, this award recognizes both plays and musical theatre - and has, since its inception 16 years ago. X4n6 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:LSC is only for list articles. The problem here may be that you don't understand the difference between regular articles and list articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, as WP:Source list makes quite clear: "whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked." Which is precisely my point. X4n6 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you've got it backwards. That guideline says that all list items must follow Wikipedia's content guidelines. It does not say that embedded lists must include all notable items that could possibly be relevant to the embedded list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I'm leaning toward not including "audience" awards. They've always struck me as more fancruft than any real measure of excellence. We can include all sorts of nonsense in all sorts of articles, but we don't, because our editorial judgement is that somethings are less important than others. without that judgement we can include almost anything and our articles would be book length, not the subject summary we aim for. – SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm rather relieved to see SchroCat's wise comment above, as it makes me think I am not as out-of-step with mainstream opinion as I thought. (Full disclosure: SchroCat and I are frequent collaborators on WP, but we haven't discussed this point.) When in doubt, I try to ask myself what a visitor to an encyclopaedia article is looking for. American readers, from what I can gather, seem interested in awards, sometimes to the point of obsession, whereas to a European eye such decorations are not terribly fascinating. Still, if American—and any other—readers expect to see mention of awards, they should be accommodated. Which awards should be included? In my view they should be strictly confined to the recognised top level—Oscars, Tonys etc. – Tim riley talk 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Black Crook

Can anyone tell if this edit is legitimate? The references do not include page numbers, and the second one must mean "Herald", not "Harold", unless the whole edit is a prank: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Black_Crook&type=revision&diff=727859560&oldid=724952537 Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no way of looking at the cited articles. I did find this interesting article at the New York Public Library web site, from June 2, 2011, which mentions the Herald, at [1]]. There is also some mention of the Herald's criticism in the book Horrible Prettiness: Burlesque and American Culture, by Robert C. Allen, page 113. ([2]]). I do not know where else to search, nor do I have much time (or energy) to do anything else on this. Flami72 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Very helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Current cast" and "closing cast" columns in Cast/roles tables in Musical Articles

So, Ssilvers and I have been having a discussion about the Hamilton (musical) article, specifically the inclusion of the Current Broadway Cast in the table in the Roles and principal cast section. I believe that the current cast information is encyclopedic and worth noting, since it shows who is currently playing the role. I point to the precedent set by other recent shows, such as Wicked (musical) & The Book of Mormon (musical) (the first two musicals to pop into my head). Ssilvers believes that such information is WP:FANCRUFT, and points to featured articles, Carousel (musical) & South Pacific (musical), or a good article, Hair (musical), as precedent. I would like to point out that none of those musicals are currently running, so they aren't the best precedent. I am not a member of this WikiProject (Ssilvers is), however, I am just looking for more input, a project policy, and/or the creation of a project policy. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that a "Current B'way Cast" (or "Current West End Cast") column in cast tables is WP:FANCRUFT and also violates the spirit of WP:PROMO, since the column is promotional in nature. I believe the same thing about "Closing Cast" columns. Also note that the column is redundant, since the footnotes under the table contain a list of notable Broadway cast replacements. I believe that Cast tables in musical theatre articles best serve an encyclopedic purpose when they present only the original cast of the most important productions of the musical.
Our guideline, WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, deals with this specifically (under "Productions"): "For the original Broadway or West End production, there may be a cast list, with notable actors bluelinked, or the casting may be described in prose. Please do not delete such lists. However, there should not be full lists of replacement casts. Notable replacement actors can be named either next to the original cast list or in prose in the description of the production. Other productions should merely name the notable actors and production team members who have Wikipedia articles and can be blue-linked, unless their names are important to an understanding of the musical and its history. A citation to the full cast lists can be given so that the information is easily accessible to anyone who needs this information." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In my experience, I believe Ssilvers tends to broadly interpret what is considered "fancruft." However, I would also note that fancruft is NOT a Wikipedia policy and should not be treated as one. It is merely an essay, nothing more. I would also remind folks that project guidelines are also not policy - as projects explicitly have no special rights or privileges and may not impose their preferences on articles. That said, I agree with Elisfkc that the listing of current Broadway casts is both useful and informative and should be included. In my view, closing casts should also be treated the same way, because they are both historical and encyclopedic inclusions. X4n6 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Definitely fancruft – and smacks of RECENTISM too. We are not a listings site and I find that the 'current cast' normally falls outside what is encyclopaedic. – SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Neither fancruft nor recentism are policies. Whether either even applies is also debatable. For example, how is the closing cast of a show that closed months/years ago, recentism? Keeping in mind, again, that neither claim would form a basis for exclusion anyway. X4n6 (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I am well aware that they are essays, but the rationale behind them is persuasive. Either way, we are still not a listings site or a repository of unencyclopaedic trivia. There is also a matter of undue WP:WEIGHT being applied with the RECENTISM: why this one list: why not all the cast lists from all productions? - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I still see no evidence of recentism; and essays are simply that. Their level of persuasion being purely a matter of conjecture. In fact, as FANCRUFT correctly notes, as applies to all essays, they often represent minority viewpoints. Weight is also one of the most overused and misused claims made on this project, usually as a replacement for more substantive arguments. In this case, I see nothing where WEIGHT applies, as it goes to viewpoint. No viewpoint is expressed by listing closing casts in a musical. But the historical importance and significance are obvious. They are also encyclopedic. Like so many other lists on this project are historical and encyclopedic. I see no reason or value in treating this field any differently. X4n6 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
All I see here is ILIKEIT and you trying to ignore TWO policies I included, WEIGHT (yes, there is an issue, whether you like it or not - WEIGHT does not "goes to viewpoint", however much you try and twist it), and WP:NOT - we are not a repository of unencyclopaedic trivia. There is nothing of "historical importance and significance" in including fluff such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't ignored any policies, as much as I've said I don't see that they've been properly applied here. Nor have you explained how you believe they do apply, beyond simply acting as though invoking the very words "fluff" or "fancruft" or "weight" can be used as some sort of cudgel to end all subsequent discussion. If you will actually review WEIGHT, you'll see the word "viewpoint" is listed EIGHT TIMES. So its useless trying to pretend viewpoint doesn't provide the basis for the policy. As to NOT, no WP is not a paper encyclopedia. It is a digital one. Still, per WP:5P1, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I've also correctly noted that two essays which you've referenced are not policies, despite your efforts to "enforce" them as though they were. Nor have you even attempted to respond to my concern that you're attempting to enforce "rules" here that don't apply anywhere else on this project. X4n6 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to "enforce" anything, but to provide several essays and policies that generally point to one direction. I have no idea why you think you need to point out WP is not a paper encyclopaedia (no shit, Sherlock), but you seem to be missing the point as to what encyclopaedic means, and the dross you think is worth carrying is not encyclopaedic. As to WEIGHT, yes, you are breaching that too, by providing too much focus on the recent and unremarkable; why the cast list for this particular run? You should be either providing them all or none, or those the reliable sources tell us are truly noteworthy. As you don't seem to be listening to what I've written, and are missing out most of the points I've lain out before you, I'll let others give their opinions, as ICANTHEARYOU seems to be the order of advance here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Once again you rely on essays. To use your terminology so that you clearly understand: I really don't give a shit about essays. Clear now? Regarding policies on the other hand, I am perfectly prepared to have that discussion. While you also claim I don't hear your arguments, where are your well-reasoned responses to mine? I've said WEIGHT goes to viewpoint and proved it by noting how many times the word appears. Your response? Crickets. You just regurgitated your claims of RECENTISM, which I had already challenged by asking you about shows which closed months/years ago. Again, where was your response? There was none. But since you've assumed my concerns were about this particular show, let me clearly answer you again: I think we should be adding closing cast lists for ALL shows that editors can reliably source. Per WP:PURPLIST below, this is significant and historical "information." Now I've answered you. Can you answer me? X4n6 (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

[left] I think I've had this discussion with x4n6 before, but being a good editor requires judgment. We must choose what is most important and noteworthy about a particular topic. WP:NOTEWORTHY states: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." That is, we need to apply wise WP:editorial discretion to determine encyclopedic content, keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROMO and the other parts of WP:NOT, and avoid fancruft and other unencyclopedic clutter. Anyhow, we know what the four of us think. Anyone else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth carrying on this discussion, Ssilvers: ICANTHEARYOU and IDONTLIKEIT seem to be the method of ignoring and misinterpreting all guidelines and comments that do not support this users deeply entrenched opinions. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Rather than threatening to take your ball and go home, you could see that I've responded to you - in detail - above. But it remains to be seen if you're capable of responding as reasonably. X4n6 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
What a charmless little editor you are. I am not "threatening to take your ball and go home" as you so childishly put it: I have better things to do than try and discuss matters with an inflexible timewaster who doesn't like to have their concrete opinions to be brought into question. You have had policies shown to you and you have misinterpreted them to your own ends. As I said before - it's time for to deal with less inflexible people than the arrogance I've seen on display from you. Well done on your BATTLEFIELD approach to deal with the AGF of others. Excellent collegiate approach you have. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Why anyone ever even bothers to try to engage with you must be one of the great mysteries of the modern age. Invariably your fall back position whenever you've lost the argument, (which is regularly), is to revert to the churlish and ridiculous. That you still call essays "policies" speaks volumes about your level of comprehension here. But even worse, that you of all people, would have the temerity to call another editor childish - then try to shroud yourself in AGF - is itself a laugh. Market that hubris. Can't win on the merits, resort to ad hominems. Eh, that's fine. I pretty much knew whom I was dealing with all along. I knew it wouldn't take long before you blew a gasket and exposed yourself. But now, per WP:DNFTT, I really can ignore you. Willingly. X4n6 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't add lying to the list of your numerous other faults. I have not claimed that any of the essays I have quoted are policies. I have provided some essays and some policies. The fact that you are unable to tell the difference speaks volumes. If you are unable to be honest on something so clear to everyone who reads this, then your tendentious idiocy can safely be ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I am confident the record here is crystal clear. It cannot be altered in your favor. You wrote: "You have had policies shown to you" so I quoted you, pointing out that you still seem to think essays are policies. So the only liar here is you. I'll work with anyone here who is not you. But feel free to continue your screed, as I won't feed you again, little troll. But I will grant you your last hissy fit now - because your fragile little ego desperately requires it. But it will hardly be the prevailing word. X4n6 (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors: Pls also see here that this user originally attempted to censor the above comment, claiming NPA. But given this user's litany of ad hominems above - which I chose not to remove - that alone speaks volumes. X4n6 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Unlike other policies and guidelines, and what may or may not be their applicability, I do believe the style guide's WP:PURPLIST is useful here: "Information. The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." While WP:editorial discretion is merely another essay, not a policy, guideline or style guide. But WP:LISTN, while mostly addressing standalone lists, does states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Also would you explain how you believe PROMO applies? Because like WEIGHT and NOT, I see no relevance here. Just as I remain concerned that certain, likely minority opinion essays, like FANCRUFT, are being routinely misinterpreted as policies. X4n6 (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Are we actually voting now? As it doesn't appear this is a real RFC. But if you will indulge questions, I would ask you why you feel the list is non-encylopedic? And what separates closing night from opening night cast lists? Perhaps you'd like to see no cast lists at all? X4n6 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Opening night cast is the one that media sources have considered the most important since the birth of theatre. It is the one that is reviewed by the major critics, eligible for the major theatre awards, remembered for originating roles, and written about in theatre books. Sometimes a replacement player becomes known for a role, but rarely; most of the replacement cast is not as well-known as the original cast, and the footnotes under the table do an excellent job of noting the notable replacement players. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Those with actual knowledge of the Broadway, West End or professional theatre communities know that since the birth of theatre, a show's closing date is as significant, if not more so, than its opening. A beloved show does not become beloved on opening night. Nor does a long running show enjoy its long run on opening night. Closing night casts become the beneficiaries of all the goodwill an important or beloved show has accrued. Media coverage of shows that have attained that status is routine and closing night casts are the most important components of the closing night experience. To suggest that the importance of a cast ends after opening night, is to completely miss the point. As anniversary productions and closing night celebrations of shows from "A Chorus Line" to "Les Miz" to "Billy Elliot" to "42nd Street" to "Dreamgirls" et al attest, the casts during the complete run of Broadway/West End shows are significant and of historical, cultural and informational importance. The Internet Broadway Database also does not list just the opening night casts. If an encyclopedia cannot chronicle such encyclopedic information, it has no purpose. X4n6 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because you have a party does not mean that closing night is more important than opening night. But in any event, you make my case: The IBDB lists the full opening night cast, and then it just notes replacement players, rather than repeating a full cast list for any night other than opening night. But the IBDB's mission is different from ours: It intends to give complete casting information. We are WP:NOT a directory or database, and so we only give the most important information: opening night principal cast, other notable players, and notable replacement players. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's actually opening nights which traditionally have what is known as a cast party. Closing night parties are a bit more democratic and generally include cast and crew. They're obviously also a bit more subdued. Because this is the final time that people who have seen each other eight times a week, for weeks, months or years, will all be in the room at the same time. But I'm not really sure what your point is there. However, I do think you misread IBDB. It lists complete casts. The very thing which you're opposed to here. But it does so because in one very important way, IBDB's mission is identical to ours: to record important contributions to the shows we both report on. They do that. And you've neglected to point out that we've done that too. For years. So it's important to note that you're not defending current practices. You're advocating changing them. And for no reason that I find compelling, or even necessary. Also WP:NOT is intentionally overbroad and vague. So it's not a particularly useful policy to cite in its totality. If you have a specific section of it that you believe applies here, it would be preferable to reference that section, so we can discuss it. Otherwise, you could apply it as a blanket objection to virtually everything and anything, which would be a pretty clear misreading of its intent. X4n6 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No, you're simply wrong. IBDB lists the opening cast of a production. Then it shows cast replacements in a chronological order. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I must correct you. IBDB lists the entire casts of Broadway productions. On a show's page it lists opening night credits - but it also lists current casts. And on individual performers' pages, it lists their complete Broadway credits. In fact, IBDB endeavors to list every performer who has ever appeared in a Broadway show. X4n6 (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, IBDB is a directory whose purpose is promote theatre and provide complete information within their remit, unlike Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia that gives the most important one-stop information about a topic. I see that IBDB has begun to show current cast for some shows, but this is a new development. Anyhow, as I noted above, the Musical Theatre project's own guideline clearly states that there should not be full lists of replacement casts. This is consistent with the principles of WP:NOT, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROMO, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:RECENT. Also, no WP:Featured Articles on musicals include multiple cast lists for any one production of a musical. In fact, they usually use a very compact table showing the opening cast and also the notable people who have performed principal roles in major, long-running productions of the musical. See, for example, The King and I and Carousel (musical). Obviously you and I disagree, so let's hear from other users who work regularly on musical theatre articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you now see that IBDB lists current casts. Not for some shows, but for all Broadway shows which are currently running. It is even beginning to list tour casts. Perhaps it has been a while since you reviewed IBDB. But their inclusion goes directly to the merits of your position, because it defeats the basis of your entire argument that current and closing casts are fundamentally insignificant. Additionally, I have already asked that you address any specific issues which you feel are relevant per WP:NOT, as simply name-checking a gaggle of unenforceable and non-policy essays like FANCRUFT - which itself warns that it may only represent a minority viewpoint - and WP:RECENT, which is nothing but another essay, not a policy or guideline. Nor does it even apply, as a current cast is hardly breaking news. You've also provided no explanations regarding the relevance of the actual policies which you have referenced. Just "listing" them, as it were, is thoroughly non-persuasive. Regarding WP:PROMO you haven't shown which section you believe is relevant. The claim certainly fails the 5 tests of that policy. There is nothing promotional about listing the cast of a show, no more than listing the name of the show itself is promotional. And if PROMO were to apply to any cast, it would apply to all casts. Clearly an overreach. The same with WP:WEIGHT, which applies to the question of expressing a viewpoint. Listing a cast does not express any viewpoint whatsoever. It is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Nor when properly sourced, does it violate any tenet of neutrality or balance. As to your arguments about WP:Featured Articles, I also don't see how they're relevant. While lovely, not ever article aspires to FA status, nor should it; nor by requirement would most attain it even if they tried, as only a few representational articles can ever be selected. But while FA is a bragging point among editors, it has little interest or utility to the vast majority of the readers - who are our primary responsibility. And their only reason for utilizing this project, is to find the information they're looking for. Either an article has that information, or it does not. The overwhelming majority of readers couldn't care less about what little awards editors have bestowed on articles as some internal function. Our job here is to adhere to the tenets of an encyclopedia, as noted with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
But finally, it also appears that you need to be reminded that, per Wikipedia:WikiProject, projects are not rule-making organizations, so their guidelines are unenforceable. Projects have no special rights or privileges and may not impose their preferences on articles. Your entire claim appears to rest on the simple theory that only Andrea McArdle, who created the role of Annie, is significant enough to be included in the cast list of the article on that musical. I disagree. I believe that article is incomplete if it ignores the fact that Shelly Bruce, Sarah Jessica Parker and Allison Smith also all attained stardom performing that role on Broadway. And they should be included in any cast lists, not as a standalone codicil or footnote. As I've pointed out before, you are looking to fundamentally change the way this project has edited for years. The onus is, therefore, on you to make a compelling case for that change. You simply have not done so. So I believe it's time that we move on. X4n6 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

[left] Totally wrong. The other notable actresses should be listed under the cast list as notable replacements (ironically, you chose Annie as an example, but that article doesn't currently include ANY full cast list or casting table, so perhaps you don't understand what we're talking about). I know that you are in favor of adding redundant and unencyclopedic information into musical theatre articles. How about other editors? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand nothing is "totally wrong" simply because you choose to disagree with it. That retort is not only unresponsive, but it doesn't help or collaborate. In fact, it just exposes the flaws in your arguments, since you're unable to defend them better. As to the Annie example, again, you missed the point. The current article wasn't referenced as a model. Just the opposite. I noted the article was incomplete as it did not include cast lists with all those actresses included. However, if you're unable or unwilling to respond: not only to the answers I've given you, but to the questions I've asked you; then it's probably best we end this now. X4n6 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
What I like about User:Ssilvers's thinking is that it is so carefully considered and thought out. Even a brief look at musical theatre reviews reveals that the opening cast is by far the most important (the only exception I can think of in the past 15 years is Annie Get Your Gun with Reba MacInytre as the replacement). Sorry, User:X4n6 but you'll need to have a much more extensive and convincing argument for me to consider your point of view. - kosboot (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry too, kosboot, but because your response, as expressed, doesn't make sense. Musical theatre reviews, like all theatre reviews, discuss opening casts because shows are traditionally only reviewed once opened. So I don't follow your point. But it is true that long-running shows often get re-reviewed, especially on Broadway. In noting that, you've actually helped advance my point: which is that subsequent casts are also of significant and intrinsic value in discussing the history of any show. Your example supports that argument. Also keep one other thing in mind: I am not the editor advocating changing editing practices here. So it's not my job to convince you of anything. But like you, I have yet to see "a much more extensive and convincing argument for me to consider [that] point of view." X4n6 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
And sorry to you User:X4n6 but I see you're only too happy to turn a person's words into an argument supporting your point of view even when the words themself absolutely do not support your argument. I could say anything and you'll turn it into something you want to believe. You say "long-running shows often get re-viewed" - I would say selectively, particularly the majority of shows are not long-running. Secondly, aside from those rare exceptions, other than newspaper reviews, what sources put equal weight to succeeding casts? Maybe some reference books note a few cases where there were important successions, but the most important reference books (Bloom, Norton, Gänzl) state only the opening cast. The idea that the opening casts is more significant is supported by those cases where the opening cast is the one for whom the show was created - there are numerous examples of where the show's creators tailored dialogue and character to the opening night cast. - kosboot (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry again, kosboot. For carefully reviewing what you wrote; then trying to figure out where you were coming from; and then trying to find some common ground. Sorry that approach has apparently offended you. Would you prefer more contentiousness and less collaboration? Again, sorry. But the fact is, you are correct that the majority of shows are not long running. But in those cases, the question of subsequent casts is moot, isn't it? Because the closing cast is usually exactly the same as the opening cast. But I will point to one area where you have misstated the case. The question was never: are subsequent casts as significant as opening casts? The questions were always: are subsequent casts significant in their own right? And are they even significant at all? The only correct answer to both of those questions is: Of course, yes. They are listed in books that attempt to chronicle the complete history of Broadway shows and productions. They are listed on websites which dutifully report cast replacements on Broadway and on tour. They are also recorded on the Internet Broadway Database, which was created by The Broadway League, "the national trade association for Broadway" that "provides a comprehensive database of shows produced on Broadway". In fact, IBDB lists Broadway opening night casts; current Broadway casts; as well as current Broadway national tour casts. Also, Broadway national tour casts generally get reviewed in every city in which they perform. So not only do Broadway shows occasionally get re-reviewed, but Broadway tours get reviewed constantly. The fact is, Broadway touring casts get reviewed far more than Broadway opening casts and current Broadway casts combined. So there's the correct answer. Broadway itself considers them all significant and their reviews consider them all significant. But the real issue here, is that we've always been able to list those casts. Shouldn't we continue to be able to do so? And if not, then why not? The current standards and practices don't need defending. But any changes or new limitations potentially being imposed on them, that would only further inhibit editors or confound readers, do. X4n6 (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the table, having earlier looked in briefly and then looked out again. But returning to the matter and giving it the consideration it merits, although I see what those of a contrary view are getting at, nonetheless I think the case made by Ssilvers (who - for the record - is a regular collaborator of mine in other areas of WP) is convincing. What constitutes 'encyclopaedic' is of course a matter of personal opinion, but Ssilvers's take on it so far as cast listings are concerned seems to me sensible, and, crucially, in line with the prevailing consensus among regular contributors to articles on musicals. Those who would like to list casts galore have, it seems to me, failed to make a case for its being useful to our readers. Tim riley talk 15:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, as well as your candor in acknowledging that you regularly collaborate with the editor advocating this change. We all agree that what defines "encyclopedic" information is reasonably subject to discussion. Where it appears we disagree, is two-fold: in the view that projects, and by extension their members, may enforce guidelines, special rights or privileges, or may impose those preferences on articles, or other editors. And second, I believe perhaps, you misread the status quo. The editor advocating a change in the status quo is not me - but the editor you've mentioned. My response is that no clear or compelling reason, or need to do that, has been shown. X4n6 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I hear what you say, but does anyone else agree with you? Tim riley talk 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair question. Sure. As just mentioned above: the Internet Broadway Database and by extension, The Broadway League do. And also the books, websites and newspapers across the country who regularly review Broadway touring production casts and dutifully report those cast lists do. Not to mention all the editors on this project who have, for years, worked on cast lists for theatre articles without an issue; and the readers who have regularly come here expecting to find that information. So who else do I need? X4n6 (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Other sites no doubt have their own protocols and policies, but so far as Wikipedia is concerned, as far as I can see from a quick scan of the extensive exchanges above, all the other people who have expressed a view disagree with you. Tim riley talk 13:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought you were asking me for real world applications. I also answered from Wikipedia's historical and past practices perspectives. Now I see you were asking re: the discussion here. So quick scan again, to the very top of this section. You'll see that I didn't begin this discussion. I agree with the editor who did. X4n6 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
My own particular WP interest is opera, where we are pretty rigorous about giving original cast details in a table and mentioning any notable variants in later peformances in the text. I don't see that the Broadway form of Musiktheater need start spawning multiple listings. I've had a look at a couple of FAs on musicals and they are broadly on the same lines as the operas: the original cast is listed and notable later players are mentioned ad hoc. Those who want detailed information about casts rather than the works are well served elsewhere, e.g. at Operabase and the Broadway equivalents, which can offer a multiplicity of detail that we couldn't possibly aim at here in our articles about the actual works. I suggest it would be wise to stick with the established modus operandi for musicals as in those FAs (e.g. South Pacific) Tim riley talk 13:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
As it turns out, I too am an operaphile, Tim - so "Brindisi!" But like most, probably, I'm not overly invested in the original casts in opera, simply because I'm not particularly conversant with the singers of a century or more past. I'm much more engaged with the singers of the recording age: as I can actually play the game of listening to and comparing a Björling with a Pavarotti, Di Stefano, Del Monaco, Caruso, Lanza, Alagna or Domingo. So in that sense, I'm not really sure it's an apt comparison. By contrast, Broadway is quite different. A Broadway show can run for many years, without a break, in the same theatre - whereas an opera, even if it's one of the warhorses, as you know, only appears in far less occasional rotation within a company's repertoire. Additionally, even when Broadway attempts to mount an operatic-style production, it does so with multiple casts, as with a Les Miz, or Phantom or even a La Bohème. Also Broadway regularly mounts and launches national tours of its most successful productions, something unheard of in opera. Loaning out productions, which does happen frequently, isn't really analagous; as only the sets travel, not the casts. So, as much as I can appreciate your point, I do think the comparison is apples and oranges. I'm also less inclined to favor the notion of projects dictating guidelines in articles, even if one of those guidelines is to promote FAs. While I realize that's heretical to those who labor well in the vineyard in service to their interests, it still remains a fundamental tenet here and I believe with good reason. As I've said before, we are an encyclopedia. And while I certainly don't subscribe to the notion that this compels us to dutifully note every single jot of minutiae, I also don't subscribe to the notion that Broadway casts - whether past or present - or the Broadway-quality tours they produce, are minutiae. Just take a look at our article for Les Misérables (musical). Then tell me the article would be better served with less information about the various casts. X4n6 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks pretty cluttered and unhelpful to me, and the choice of productions is amusingly arbitrary. No Spain? Paris revivals? Don't Australian productions matter? Or Canadian? Etc, etc. It's a B class article I note. Much better to join the top table and follow the pattern established in the Featured Articles. If people want listings there are sites especially devoted to them. Wikipedia, per contra, isn't a listings site: it is an encyclopaedia. Tim riley talk 07:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, agree to disagree. I'd much rather see reasonable attempts at including such useful information, per WP:WIP, rather than absolutely zero attempt at all. That's been standard practice here, since the beginning. And I see no reason to change it. Precisely because this is an encyclopedia, not a digest. X4n6 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:WIP is an essay. It's an odd thing to throw in the mix from someone who says "I really don't give a shit about essays." - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't. But obviously you and others do, so it was an appropriate reference. And certainly not my only one. Just as, contextually, that was an appropriate response to you. Anyway, it's nice to see you've been following along. I hope it's taught you how to disagree and still be civil. X4n6 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering what an obnoxious troll you've been throughout, the thing is surprise that you've not been blocked for your battleground approach, bludgeoning of others, 'I don't hear you' lack of interaction and tendentious baiting and trolling, despite being in a small minority with little to back you up but your own misguided opinion. Time for you to troll off elsewhere and for me to leave you to have an attempt at some pathetic riposte. Tootle pip. – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
And with that, I have my answer. Even when given an opportunity to exhibit even some fledgling capacity for equanimity, you never fail to take the low road: the dispensing of ad hominems being your lone suit. And your only "contribution." Sadly, you always reliably revert to your natural mein: which is jackass. Yawn. X4n6 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
SchroCat does lots of excellent work on Wikipedia, creating, improving and promoting numerous articles to WP:Featured Article. Some others mostly add trivia and WP:FANCRUFT and bloated tables to articles, making them less useful to general readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
But you're still quoting your favorite essay like it's policy. You really should refrain from that and permanently ban "fancrufty" and all variants thereof, from your lexicon. If not, then perhaps work to make it an actual policy; instead of just behaving as though it already is. X4n6 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with SchroCat on the essence of the matter. The exquisitely – and most welcomely – polite language of X4n6 fails, it seems to me, to disguise an implacable opposition to any dissenting view, a remarkable ability to bend the facts to suit an entrenched position, and a sedulous refusal to accept that FAs, having been through rigorous review by multiple editors, are a better template than B class articles that do not match the FA standard. -- Tim riley talk 20:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC):
As to your response above, while I find it regrettable, it is perhaps illustrative of why projects - and by inherent extension, their members - are so wisely and explicitly prohibited from enforcing their guidelines on articles, per WP:PROJ. All that barnstar-gifting between a small handful of editors, does make for some rather incestuous relationships, and to use your word, implacable positions. Not to mention, its own echo chamber. Mustn't bite the hands that feed you multiple barnstars, right? There is also some rather transparent hypocrisy in any indictment that accuses me of refusing to move from my entrenched position, when the same must be said of you. Especially when, it has been interesting to note, that throughout this colloquy, you've been consistently unable to even concede that what you're defending, represents a change in the past and current practices of this project - see capital "P." So this has been backwards from the beginning. Instead of trying to convince you, all along the onus has been on you and the members of your project (small "p"), to convince non-member editors like me, of the benefits of the changes you're advocating. Because, despite being well ensconced here in your faux fiefdom, you are the supplicants here, not me. And you have failed to make your case in this forum. At least to me. And likely to the editor who began this section. As I suspect you would likely fail before the larger membership as well. X4n6 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Threepenny Opera

Would any active members please take a look at Talk:The Threepenny Opera. This musical has been miscategoried as an "opera" for a long time. Even the opera-source, Grove, says that it's a musical. In the list of "Operas, Operettas, Musicals and Ballets", it is described as "play with music". (Grove 1980 v.20, 309). The arguments against calling it an opera are that, as the image in the article states unambiguously, as does the lede, that it is a "play with music", or a musical. The categorisation in place is OR. A search on Youtube for recordings offers a common-sense based definition as well. No one who has actually experienced the work imagines it's an opera. Our article ought not to mislead its readers with a false categorisation, regardless of a Wikiproject's (false) sense of ownership. Please take a look and comment.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive 14 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages. Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis. Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016. Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

'Synopsis' Length

Salutations, WikiProject MT!

Got any guidelines on how long you prefer the 'synopsis' in an article? We've got a long one (in my eyes) over at Holiday Inn (musical) and its apparently your jurisdiction. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 03:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Our article structure guidelines are here. They specify that plot synopses should aim for 800 to 1100 words. I've streamlined the synopsis a bit. It's not terribly long, but I am sure someone else could condense it a bit more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Got it down to 1165. DonIago (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing deletion discussions

I have nominated two musical theater actors for deletion, Seth Stewart and Sydney James Harcourt. Whether you feel they should be deleted or kept, I ask you to participate in the discussions here and here so that we can get a consensus one way or the other. JDDJS (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Trenyce for peer review

I've listed Trenyce for peer review. This article is about an American singer and actress best known as a finalist on the second season of American Idol and for her work in musical theatre. I would like to get this article to the level of a Good Article sometime in the future. This is the first time that I have worked on this time of article (something on a living person). I would greatly appreciate any help on this. Comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Trenyce/archive1. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

New page idea

Chicago (musical) is one of the longest running shows in Broadway history. One important reason why it has run for so long is that they often cast known celebrities in it. We list a handful of the many celebrities that have appeared in the show on the main article page, but many notable performers are left off the list because it will simply be too long if we listed them all. I had an idea that maybe we could make a separate article to list all of the notable people to have appeared in Chicago. However, this is something that will require a lot of work. I didn't mind doing the work, but I would hate to do all that work to just have it be deleted. So I want to see if other people here think that it's a good idea first. JDDJS (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it, but I don't think it's a terribly encyclopedic list. The IBDB already lists the replacement players for the Broadway productions here and here and gives links to US touring casts here (a West End replacement list might be harder to do, but more interesting for that reason). What would be more interesting, perhaps, would be a list of the stars who have played more than, say, 6 months, 3 months or 100 performances (or some other reasonable cutoff) that shows the stars who have spent very significant time with the major productions (1) on Broadway, (2) in the West End, and (3) on national tours. Also, maybe a list of Oscar winners, Emmy winners, Grammy winners, Tony winners and Olivier winners who have been in the show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It does seem to be listcruft if we were to include every name. We would need guidelines to be what would be considered a "celebrity" and how long they had the role, or if it would be a "special appearance" situation. I like the idea though! BOVINEBOY2008 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that time in the role should be the factor to make the list but if the celebrity was known for theater before taking the role. For example, Eddie George was in the show for less than two months, but he received some pretty notable coverage for doing it. JDDJS (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Half a Sixpence

Half a Sixpence and Half a Sixpence (2016 musical)

Opinions on this? Essentially the 2016 musical is a revival of Half a sixpence but with the addition of a number of songs by Stiles & Drewe, script changes etc, but it is essentially still "Half a Sixpence". I would propose a merge and re-write but would be interested in any opinions.Mark E (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it's borderline and there's arguments both ways. Other shows have had a major 'revisal', where the book gets rewritten and maybe a song or two from the same writers gets added (like Flower Drum Song in 2002 or Anything Goes in 1987). We still treat them as basically the one show with the same WP page. But if this is essentially a new show based on the same source material with a few of the original Heneker songs included, that's different and probably does deserve its own page. Do we know what proportion of the score is new? Boneymau (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
So I've seen the new production 3 times personally, and had seen a previous UK tour about 10 years ago which was slightly changed from the original (from what i gather!).

From the song list of the original production, it appears there have been three numbers which have been fully cut/replaced, and then there are an additional 7-8 numbers by Stiles and Drew which have been added and some short reprises. The new article borrows heavily from the original and a lot of the content is duplicated. I'd be willing to suggest that one article covering both would be sufficient as is the case of Anything Goes, which quite extensively details the changes for each production. This isn't quite necessary here as two song lists already appear in the original artical.Mark E (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Hi All, Would appreciate your input here: Wikipedia talk:Notability

Mark E (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Mark, I have replied (but with apologies must delay much serious work on Wikipedia for a bit longer). Flami72 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive 14/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Musical Theatre.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Musical Theatre, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

IOBDB recently changed their URLs -- please help with cleanup

The Lortel Archives have decided to change their URL scheme, and in order to make sure everything actually ends up at the right location pages using the old URL/Template scheme have been placed into Category:Pages using a generic version of Template:iobdb. Your assistance is requested in converting these pages from using a generic {{iobdb}} to one of the more subject-specific sub-templates. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia needs help to clean up 1,300 IOBDB dead links. Please help us. Here is the procedure: If you're looking for a specific person (say, Franklin Underwood, you'd end up here). To fix it, go to the Lortel search page here, put in his name and search. On the next screen, click on the red link to his name, and that will bring you to his listing. Get his ID number from the address bar at the top (25087), and copy it. Then go to his Wikipedia article and change the {{iobdb}} template to {{iobdb name|25087}}. For a venue, you'd use {{iobdb venue}}, and for a specific production you'd use {{iobdb title}}, all with the same procedure. Full instructions are at each template's documentation, as well as the category page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, I did not break the links. Lortel changed their URL scheme, and so every link on every page was broken. None of the extant usage is broken at the moment because I fixed the templates, but they are not pointing to the best URLs. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to paint me as an evil villain. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
However, Ssilvers makes a good point regarding the size of the issue; we could use the help. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration

WiR focus on music and dance in July

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg


(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lin-Manuel Miranda

There's a debate going on at Lin-Manuel Miranda about whether or not to include actor in the lead. Please join the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This debate is still going; now it's about singer. Since it's basically a deadlock between me and an other editor, please break help break the tie, one way or another. JDDJS (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. I don't believe singer should be used in he lead.Mark E (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite Parisian Model

I've started A Parisian Model, the 1906 Broadway musical which cemented Ziegfeld's fame as well as that of Anna Held. But I find I'm not sure if the show is *A* Parisian Model or *The* Parisian Model. Various legitimate sources use one or the other. I find newspaper ads in the New York Sun for "The Parisian Model". Any input welcome!--Milowent • hasspoken 13:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was intended to be "A", following the pattern of An Artist's Model. The IBDB uses "A", and their information is usually derived from the Broadway playbill. The original sheet music was published under "A Parisian Model". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, the sheet music, I didn't think of that. (I couldn't find a playbill or official cast listing yet). So many sources used "The" even in 1906-08 in reporting (including the New York Times review of opening night), no doubt just to cause anal wikipedia editors to fret 110 years later.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of the Edwardian musical comedies started with the definite article "The": The Arcadians, The Girl from Utah, The Toreador, The Geisha, The Earl and the Girl, so the press was used to calling them "The". But they sometimes used the indefinite article "A": An Artist's Model, A Chinese Honeymoon, A Gaiety Girl, A Runaway Girl. When I wrote those articles, I always had the same problem, but the publisher of the sheet music is reliable, and often I could find the original posters or theatre cards advertising the productions, if not the playbills. In fact, I don't think producers cared about it very much, and Mordden's book explains that, while the original program said A Parisian Model, "most" sources restyled the show's title as "The Parisian Model". See footnote 2 on p. 83. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Help/eyes needed

Lemaroto (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring at length on Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat to change the infobox entries contrary to the style guidelines of this project. Moreover, the user has a long history, going back to August 2013, of frequent talkpage warnings about edit-warring and disruptive editing [3], which he always removes. He also leaves no edit summaries, or (now) misleading edit summaries. Could people put that article on their watch lists and help revert as appropriate? I don't want to breach 3RR. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't he right about the film adaptation section, though? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The material he added there is verbatim already in the "1990s" section of the Productions section of article, so it's redundant; and it's also missing a citation. There's certainly a case to be made that only the stage production info should stay in the Productions section, and that the straight-to-video info can go in the Film section (with a brief mention of Osmond's stage run), but that's not what he has done; he has just wholesale copied and replicated, except for the citation.

Also, now that you mention that section, the film thing proposed in 2012 is just a chimera, and should be removed at this point. The only thing even remotely possibly in the works is the animation, but even it is only "announced" at this point, so it should probably be removed as well until it actually reaches the production phase: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for the nudge on that front, Ssilvers; I went ahead and made those changes, and also fixed something that had been screwed up who knows when in the Development section. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The film stuff was still in there twice. It only belongs in the adaptations section. Since major people are involved in the announced animated film, I think it's worth mentioning, so I restored the key facts about it. I did a copy-edit of some of the article. I note that the development section is missing the key information about how the musical was conceived and how the collaboration came about. I don't watch that article, so let me know if you have any questions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your extensive help with the article, Ssilvers. I somehow missed seeing it until today when the article appeared at the top of my watchlist again. If I have time I'll see if I can find info about the inception of the piece. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Frozen Musical

Developmental Lab (11/2016) and Staged Reading (5/2016) cast:

I'm not sure what the poster wants/informs with the above post. Anyway, the article on the Frozen musical looks pretty well documented to date (see Frozen (musical)). Flami72 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no 11/2016 information is given in the article, and no citations about it are provided. I removed some of the non-notable names from the info about the 5/2016 developmental lab (some of these actors appear in the actual production and are named in the original cast list). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Choreography, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Deletion discussion of Alice in Wonderland

There's a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice in Wonderland Musical (1997) that could do with input from members of this project. Boneymau (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

By Jeeves could use some citing

If anyone has the time and interest, the article on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical By Jeeves could use some citing. It came to my attention as it is mentioned in the Andrew Lloyd Webber article, but with a similar dearth of citing, especially for the original version, Jeeves. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foxy Ladies Love/Boogie 70's Explosion

The article Foxy Ladies Love/Boogie 70's Explosion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DEL8 Article fails WP:Notability after having WP:NM tag since March 2013. Only available WP:RELIABLE sources are minimal press coverage repeating press release info, failing WP:NCONCERT guidelines as they simply establish that the revue occurred.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ElfLady64 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The revue ran for at least 7 months (on Saturday nights) at The Duplex, which is certainly a club that deserves its own article (both for the cabaret space and the singalong piano bar). It starred two notable soap opera actresses who were just beginning their TV careers. Unfortunately, the press that it got is not well preserved on Google. I think it's sort of a shame to lose the article, but unless someone wants to go to the library to find 20-year-old press pieces, I can't prove that it's notable. But I don't see the value in nominating such an article for deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think I realized that it ran for that long when trying to search for additional info, I was thinking maybe it had ten or so performances, guess I missed the "6th month of sold-out performances" at the beginning of the main source there... Maybe we could create an article for the venue, and then merge it with that? Can you do that for venues? I'd be willing. (I had been thinking it could be turned into a section on the creator's page, but Fritz Brekeller doesn't have one, which just made me think it was even less notable, but now I see he has an Emmy). It just seemed unnecessary to me to have an article that only repeats info that already exists in one place, and which is not about a published/licensed out/likely to be restaged work which would then generate more info on it/interest in it. But now looking into the Duplex, a show with a successful 7+ month run in an off-Bway cabaret seems more notable to me. I think I've talked myself into working on that article, actually... ElfLady64 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You can certainly create an article for the venue and then mention the long-running or otherwise noteworthy shows that have played at the venue. As far as I know, there are no good (or even acceptable) articles about cabaret spaces. Also no acceptable articles about piano bars. Birdland (New York jazz club) is a poor article, but better than most articles about music venues, sadly. There's not even an article on Don't Tell Mama's or Marie's Crisis (at all!). You're probably better off looking at a Theatre article: La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club is not a terrible article. Her Majesty's Theatre is an excellent, complete article about a theatre. See also 5th Avenue Theatre and Savoy Theatre. Even a "start" class article would be much better than nothing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Tonys

I was wondering -- I believe Andrew Lloyd Webber has only won three Tonys (not seven, as it says in his article), since he did not individually produce the musicals of his which won Best Musical. Is there a policy that addresses this? If we applied that logic to, say, Stephen Sondheim's page, it would say that he had won thirteen Tonys instead of eight, but I think that article has the right idea. NathanielTheBold (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Lloyd Webber's musicals that won the Best Musical Tony are Sunset Boulevard, Phantom and Cats. He won four other Tonys:
  • Best Book for Sunset Boulevard (according to IBDB, but not the official Tonys site)
  • Best Score for Sunset Boulevard
  • Best Score for Cats
  • Best Score for Evita
Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group was a producer of the musicals, so I think he should be credited for the Best musical Tonys, even when there were other co-producers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Following up on this -- I can understand crediting his production company's Tonys to him, but I think that still leaves him with just six Tonys, since I don't believe he won for the book of Sunset Boulevard (not sure why IBDB says otherwise, but that book is credited to Don Black and Christopher Hampton). His Evita did also win Best Musical, but that's not listed as being produced by the Really Useful Group. Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and I changed it at the Lloyd Webber article. BTW, they were counting Evita's best musical award (not the book for Sunset Boulevard), but that did not belong to Lloyd Webber. In any case, six is correct. IBDB usually copies what Playbill says, so maybe the Playbill had it wrong at one point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Awards articles

Looking for some consensus on this, since there's been disagreement editing-wise: for articles such as Tony Award for Best Musical and Tony Award for Best Original Score, should the Dear Evan Hansen composers be listed as Pasek & Paul or Benj Pasek & Justin Paul? I think the full names should be used, since there is virtually no other example of songwriting teams being listed that way in those articles and the Tony website uses their full names when citing their nominations. But curious to hear what others think. Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If space permits, I don't see why you can't list the full names. But if there are a bunch of names, it would probably be better to just list the bluelinked surnames to save space -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Awards sections in musicals articles

There is a MAJOR issue that I would love to get a WP:CONSENSUS on. Some articles list awards for Drama League and Critics Circle awards *as well* as Drama Desk and Tonys (and Theatre World). I would just keep Tonys and Drama Desk and Theatre World awards, as IBDB does, and eliminate the lesser awards. For shows that were *never* nominated for a Tony or Drama Desk, I wouldn't mind if lesser awards were listed. Also, of course, for off-Broadway shows, Obies and Lucille Lortel awards can be listed. Also, for West End shows, I really would only list Oliviers and get rid of Evening Standard and other lesser awards. Otherwise, the Awards lists at the bottom of musicals articles get terribly long. However, if there are sub-articles that are just lists of awards, then they can include the full lists, leaving the main article with just a narrative summary. Can we get a consensus on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree totally with Ssilvers reasoning above. Looks like a good way forward. Jack1956 (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a very sensible idea. If we reach a consensus, editors need no longer puzzle whether such-and-such an award should or should not be listed. I have no personal preference for which awards should be included (I think they are all tedious trivia: as Sir John Gielgud put it, "I really detest all the mutual congratulation baloney and the invidious comparisons which they evoke") but if we establish a short list of the ones that we cannot avoid mentioning, it will be a great help to editors. – Tim riley talk 06:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the sentiment, but we should at least be discussing this in the context of the current Awards section of the Article Structure and what might change. That is currently: "This section should contain a list of major awards. For musicals performed in the U.S., these awards are limited to the Tony Award, Drama Desk Award, Obie Award, and Pulitzer Prize for Drama. For musicals performed in the U.K., these awards are limited to the Laurence Olivier Award, Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award. Unlike the awards section of the infobox, production-specific awards (i.e. those given to actors/actresses in this musical) can be listed here. If this list becomes too long, it may be shortened to the most notable awards. Also, if the only awards that belong in this section are also listed in the infobox, this section need not exist. If there are only one or two notable awards, they could be mentioned in the description of the relevant productions." Boneymau (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I had forgotten that we already have a guideline on this on our Article Structure page. The only change I would suggest, then, is to remove Evening Standard Award and Critics' Circle Theatre Award for West End Shows, because the only really prestigious West End award is the Olivier. For Off-West End shows, the others are OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to add my 2 cents, the Olivier Awards in the UK are certainly the main and most prestigious awards. I would though add that in recent years the Whatsonstage.com Awards have become rather prestigious in their own right, and certainly get a lot of media coverage over here in the UK (comparable to the other awards). Mark E (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
But, User:Mark E, what would listing the WOS awards (in addition to the Oliviers) add to articles about musicals? It would just make the long tables at the bottom longer and less useful. Longer is not better, in an encyclopedia article, when the additional information does not add substantial value. We need to be selective. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Would you please consider that and let us know if you can support the proposal? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
As a regular West End theatregoer I can conscientiously say I have never heard of the "Whatsonstage.com Awards", and from a quick word with others I find I am not alone. Tim riley talk 23:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The Tony and Olivier awards are clearly the two major players. Are the Drama Desk awards a big deal? As a Brit I don't really follow them and they certainly seem like a "lesser" award. If the current wording is to be kept we should also add in Grammy award nominations for best original cast album. I can certainly Agree with the proposal in principle, but would say if a production was Tony nominated, then are the Drama Desk awards relevant? Just as if a production were Olivier nominated, are the Standards/WOS awards relevant. Mark E (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Drama Desk Awards cover both Broadway and Off-Broadway, straddling the Tonys and the Obie Awards (Off-Broadway's main awards). IBDB, which is the main Broadway database includes them. Note also that Drama Desks have been awarded since 1955 and are a not-for-profit organization. They are voted on by a wide-range of theater critics, editors and reporters who are focused on NY theatre, not just by one newspaper or media outlet, after a rigorous nominating committee procedure. Read the Wikipedia article about them, and see what you think; I think we have to include them. Grammys, on the other hand, should be noted in the articles for the cast albums, and can be mentioned in the narrative discussion of productions, but they are not "theatre awards" and I don't think they should be listed in the tables at the bottom of articles on musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Aah, ok so I understand the appeal of the Drama desk now since it covers both. Agree, Tony, DD and Oliviers. For other awards if people deem them necessary, separate articles which list other awards (such as [[List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked ), or in Prose, i think especially for when a show has won "Best Musical" at a "lesser" award like OCC, DLeague, Evening Standard, WOS awards etc. Mark E (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the first opportunity for use to take action on this issue. I removed some lesser awards at Frozen (musical) but the editor who added them is edit warring to put them back in. Will someone else please remove them and explain to the editor that those awards do not belong in the main article for that musical? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Whats on Stage Awards are certainly notable for West End Theatre and do receive wide ranging coverage in the UK. However prose is better than tables and in general we should be about making articles stronger. I do not however feel this something that a hard fixed line is required on and should be based on individual articles looking at whether the table is excessive. For instance Frozen's table is hardly excessive, but could do with established prose to back the table up.Blethering Scot 20:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the proposition that other awards that are less notable (but still notable) could be covered in short text rather than tables.Boneymau (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that too. User:Boneymau, since we seem to have a consensus on this, would you kindly make changes to the Article structure page that we can all review? That would be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

To reflect the consensus above, I've reworked the Awards section in the Article Structure as below. I also put in something about awards for musicals that originate outside the U.S. or U.K. for balance, that wasn't discussed above so everyone may wish to consider that as well. "Awards (optional). This section should contain focus on major awards. Awards of greatest notability may be structured as lists. For musicals performed in the U.S., awards as lists are limited to the Tony Award and Drama Desk Award. For musicals performed in the U.K., awards as lists are limited to the Laurence Olivier Award. If the musical originates outside the U.S. or U.K., the major award in the country of origin (if notable) may also be included in a list (for example, the Molière Award in France or the Helpmann Award in Australia). Awards of lesser notability, for example the Obie Award and Pulitzer Prize for Drama in the U.S. and the Evening Standard Award and the Critics' Circle Theatre Award in the U.K., may be mentioned as text particularly if a recipient of Best Musical or similar. Unlike the awards section of the infobox, production-specific awards (i.e. those given to actors/actresses in this musical) can mentioned in this section, although excessive detail about production-specific nominations should be avoided. If there are only one or two notable awards, they could be mentioned in the description of the relevant productions. If further detail is merited, a separate list article (for example, List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked) can be used." Boneymau (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's very good. I see one typo: "particularly if a recipient of Best Musical" should be "of", not "if". Three minor quibbles: First, Obies and Pulitzers are not "awards of lesser notability", so they should just be described as "Other awards...". (Things like Drama League Awards and Outer Critics Circle Awards are of lesser notability.) Second, the word "contain" should be deleted from the first sentence. Third, "awards as lists are limited", in the third sentence, should be "awards lists should be limited" (delete "as"). Also, I suggest that we change "are limited" to "should be limited" in the third and fourth sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Adding my support for the current proposals, with the tweaks suggested immediately above. It will be v. helpful for editors to have a framework on the lines suggested. Tim riley talk 08:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Boneymau. Looks good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Musical theatre actors has been nominated for discussion

Category:Musical theatre actors, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merge to Category:Actors, with each of its 124 subcats to be similarly merged.. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Elaine Paige for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Musical markets wordwide

If anyone here is knowledgeable (with some kind of source expertise that I lack, though I've been around a lot) about major non-U.S./non-British productions, it would be very nice to see input from such users here, or a rational & balanced discussion of the subject on this page. I know big stars of musicals in some of the countries I've mentioned in that discussion, and I also know writers of versions of musicals in those countries that have done very well, as well as the success of many productions at major theaters there. I've been in the full houses, and I know how long musicals in those countries have run jam-packed. Iow I know that it's preposterous to claim that the U.S.A. and Britain are the "only major markets for musicals" in the world. It is not preposterous to claim that major musicals mainly have originated in the U.S.A., but that's not what the discussion is about. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In Template:Infobox musical, what constitutes the "premiere"?

There's a bit of a question as to what constitutes the "premiere" of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Was it:

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a good question, but it actually demonstrates why "premiere" (likewise "debut") is usually not a very good term to use in an encyclopedia, although it is used, often repeatedly, in so many articles. It would be more precise not to call any of them the "premiere", and just to describe what sort of "first" each production represented, as you do above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

So what do you think belongs in the infobox in the "premiere" field? Or should we leave that field out and just list the significant productions? Right now the Categories have it under "1968 musicals", but the premiere in the infobox is 1972. Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd remove the "premiere" parameter as redundant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
BTW, if anyone wants to have this discussion, I think it's time for us to remove the extensive listing of revivals from musicals' infoboxes. Listing the umpteenth national tour in the infobox is a waste of space at the top of articles. is the project ready to do this? I think it would be very sensible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; agree with the removal of the "premiere" parameter in the Joseph infobox. In terms of other musicals: I feel there are certain musicals that have significant revivals that are nearly as important as their world and national premieres. That varies by musical though. The clogging of infoboxes with every single 21st-century revival/tour anywhere needs to stop though. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So, should we propose a project-wide revision of all musicals infoboxes (something like two thousand articles) to reduce the reciting of revivals in infoboxes, and if so, how can we describe the line to be drawn? Or, alternatively, should we propose simply a less-ambitious revision of our Article Structure guidelines to suggest an article-by-article trimming of the infoboxes, and, if so, what language should be proposed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. I would solicit the opinions of musical-theatre regulars. Maybe the cut-off should be if it (the revival or tour) won any major notable awards (i.e., awards that have articles on Wikipedia). That pretty much cuts out all the chaff, it would seem. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
There is already an over-emphasis on the awards in MT articles (and people can't even agree on what's a "major" award). Besides, the awards didn't start until the mid-20th century. The reason I am asking you before broaching it to the "regulars" (which I guess means this Talk page), is that if you and I can't agree, then there is really no point in even asking the question at this time. So, I'm asking, are you willing to think about this for a few days and come up with a specific suggested proposal (or two)? If not, no problem, we can drop the idea for now; but if you're interested in reducing the bloated IBs, as I am, we should try to come up with a good proposal that at least the two of us can agree on, and *then* propose it on this page under a new heading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Some initial questions: (1) Do tours really belong in the infobox? All major musicals have roadshows; who cares? (2) Aside from world premieres, would limiting the entries to Broadway and West End (or, more broadly, New York and London) be too drastic? BTW, I notice that Les Misérables and Rebecca don't have any lists. Ha! (3) What, if any, constitutes an infobox-worthy non-US/UK production? (4) Checking the few FAs of major musicals (South Pacific, Carousel, The King and I), what has governed the inclusion criteria of those infobox lists? (5) In the Guys and Dolls article, each revival has its own header in the article, and each is listed in the infobox (with the exception of the recent, all-black one; perhaps an oversight). Perhaps that musical is unusual in that major productions have been very few because of Jo Loesser's death-grip on the rights. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) No. (2) Yes. In addition to the B'way/WE premieres, I would also include any previous "major" professional tryout/regional or even tour debut if it really was the first significant, professional, fully-staged production of the musical -- not just workshops, but real, full, productions that played for a significant run. (3) I'd say only a foreign production where the run was longer or somehow more significant than any US/UK staging, or where the musical originated in the foreign market, Like Les Mis. (4) I was involved in all those FAs. We just followed the guideline here. (5) I removed the Australia production, per our guideline. I may be slow to respond to messages for the next couple of days. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor mass adding Category:Child characters in musical theatre to articles

Tom1819 has completely changed the definition of this category without discussion [5], and is now mass adding Category:Child characters in musical theatre to dozens of articles, even when it is non-defining or completely inappropriate. I've caught a few that were on my watchlist, but more eyes are needed for constraining this effort, since a lot of the additions are misguided. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Userbox?

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

Is there a userbox for WikiProject Musical Theatre?

Thank you, Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rebestalic; Here it is: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Userbox/member}} -- Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 05:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Frankel (producer)

Just a quick note to say I have created Jerry Frankel (producer).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Great American Songbook

There is a discussion at Talk:Great American Songbook#The future of this article as to how to deal with the uncited lists of songwriters, songs, and singers in that article. Please join the discussion if it interests you. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Page move request

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mary Poppins (musical) that would benefit by your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"Orchestration/Musicians" entry

Here is the text of a message I added to the article of The Cher Show (musical) re the material on Orchestration/Musicians that has been added to many articles in the last few days. I do not have the time to delete all of these entries in all of the articles.Flami72 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Per the guidelines at Musical Theatre Article Structure:

'The names of non-notable (i.e., non-bluelinked) ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted.' I am deleting the section on "Orchestration/Musicians". This section has previously been deleted on this as well as many other musical theatre articles (by 2 separate editors, on Jan 5 and Jan 6, 2019), but has been added back."

To add--my note in incorrect as at least 2 additional editors also deleted this section on 2 separate articles (Carousel (musical) and Pretty Woman: The Musical. Flami72 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to anyone who has been helping to remove this non-encyclopedic info. To find more of these "orchestration and musicians" sections in other musicals, users can look at the editing history here. Can someone please help to delete them? I am traveling and have a bad internet connection. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Orchestrations/Musicians" entry conversation

Hi all, thanks in advance for taking the time to read this. I'm a bit new to this community, and I hope I'm doing this in the right way!

Firstly, I'd like to take the time to thank you all for your dedication to keeping Wikipedia so well maintained, the work you guys do on the theatre pages is truly incredible (and consistent!). I'd also like to apologize for not coming here first to discuss this, causing many of you to take the time to undo the work I did on all the pages. This is my first time trying to add real content to Wikipedia, and I'm learning as fast as I can!

I believe that adding the lists of musicians is not only notable, but enhances the Wikipedia page. Musicians are listed in every single Playbill and Program (and as we all know, there are many people who work on a show not listed), and quite frankly are the ones who make the music in the musical. Many of them are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages and can be blue-linked (I didn't do that originally, sorry about that!). Pit musicians often have far more on their resumes than being in musicals. For instance, I just checked out Waitress, and Meghan Toohey, the guitarist, has a Wikipedia page longer than many of the actors in the cast. There are also shows like Come From Away where the band is not only part of the staging but part of the action, or The Band's Visit, where the show is actually about the band, yet none of their names get listed on Wikipedia.

Perpetuating a lack of visibility for musicians frankly detracts from the art form. What's amazing about live theater is that everything happens right in front of you. People will gripe about paying $15 for a movie ticket, but they're fine paying $100+ to go see a show, and we all know there's a reason for that. As a theater musician myself, I've been in many Broadway pits where, without exception, at intermission someone leans of the pit and is amazed to find people and instruments there. This is an element that should be celebrated—flaunted even! Knowing that the actors are real humans in front of you is one thing, but when you realize that the musicians are real, that moment is the key for so many people to realize that this entire performance is being spun into existence, night after night, by dozens of talented live people.

As the end of the day, more accurately sourced information is what Wikipedia is all about, right? Does intentionally excluding pertinent information help to enhance someone's experience on Wikipedia? Few people outside the theatre world know about IBDB, and might quickly give up searching if they can't find it on Wikipedia. This information will only enhance each page.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic, thanks for reading. Joshplotner (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Josh. Wikipedia articles should be kept concise. It is an encyclopedia of general readership, not a specialist musical theatre resource, like Playbill, Backstage or Broadwayworld.com. Articles should *not* be complete, in the sense of listing musicians, choristers, and crew. I'm sorry, but the orchestra members' names should not be included, unless there was something of historic importance about the orchestra, like, say, the trumpet was played by Louis Armstrong as an important part of the marketing of the show. Please read WP:NOT. One way to think about it, is: What would a casual theatregoer most want to know before seeing a revival of the show? Also, if you want people to focus on your Talk page comments, generally try to keep them short, in one paragraph. See TL;DR. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ssilvers, thanks for your response. Just to be clear, since I am new to this — if I'm to understand your argument correctly, non-notable (or non-bluelinked) actors should be removed from the pages, correct? For instance, the page for Lion King (musical) has around 100 non-bluelinked names of cast members. There probably aren't a ton of general readers concerned about who played Ed on the Gazelle Tour, right? Certainly, at least the conductor, whose name is announced at the beginning of every performance, should be mentioned on all these pages. I'd love to be a part of this community, and I want to understand the rules fully! Thanks, Joshplotner (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We try not to have non-notable performers mentioned, so in general yes they should be removed. The table of performers across multiple worldwide productions on The Lion King page is complete overkill for a page about The Lion King (it may be appropriate for a more detailed page of about Productions of The Lion King should such a page ever exist). Notable performers can be mentioned where a production is mentioned in the text. Re: conductor, just because a conductor is announceed at the beginning of a performance does not make him or her notable from the perspective of Wikipedia, but the musical director/supervisor of a production may be (at least for the original production, not for revivals unless there was a special reason). I'm open to specific musicians being mentioned where they are themselves notable/blue-linked and it is not just trivia, but that will be few and far between. Boneymau (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Boney is about right. See WP:BALASP and, generally, WP:NOT. If you are going to work on musicals articles, please read our Article structure page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. The conductor of a musical is generally not of encyclopedic interest. He or she is a professional hired to make sure that the cast sings and plays what is on the score in an accurate way, but he or she is basically executing what the composer wants. Unless he or she has unusually significant input into the design of the musical aspects of the show and is a notable person, he or she is not like the stage director or costume designer, who are essential creative forces in designing a production. FWIW, I performed off-Broadway, and the music director's job was very limited, creatively, unless they also happened to be the composer. I even saw stage managers directing conductors to move things along to bring the curtain down earlier. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify my credentials, I'm currently working on a Broadway show, have subbed for many others, and have played many off-Broadway shows as well. I can assure you that the way an Off-Broadway show functions is rarely anything remotely close to a Broadway show. The conductor/music director has an incredible amount of influence on the show. Especially once the show gets into rehearsals, the MD is one of the most influential people on the creative team. They often influence everything from vocal arrangements, song structure, to even blocking or lines when relevant. The only reason there isn't a Tony category for MD is because their job is so diverse and hard to define that it's impossible to judge their influence just by seeing the show, Tony voters would have to attend every rehearsal to have an informed opinion. Joshplotner (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

I was surprised yesterday when searching for information that Cassidy Janson did not have a wikipedia article, so I went and made it. Others this past week or so included Marisha Wallace and David Hunter (actor). Particularly for West End performers, there seems to be a lack of coverage. Here are some more articles in need of creation, which I will work through but if anyone wants to do some, please do.

Somgwriters in musical numbers section?

In a recent edit [6] for the article about the jukebox musical Head Over Heels, the individual songwriters were added. Is there precedent for listing this, in addition to the title and whichever characters sing the song? I hadn’t seen this before in the pages for other jukebox musicals... Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We normally do not list songwriters, except where the show is by x and y, but z contributed a song. Then we put a note in that says the score/songs are by x and y, except where noted. However, this is a jukebox musical where each song has different writing credits, so it is helpful to list them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
How many other musical articles do this? The Musical Numbers section in Xanadu doesn’t say which songs were by Jeff Flynne and which were by John Farrar; individual song writers aren’t mentioned in that section for Rock of Ages or Everyday Rapture. Ditto Jersey Boys, and a bunch of others where the songwriting credits aren’t identical. Umimmak (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. They are given in Buddy – The Buddy Holly Story, for example. If the songs are blue-linked, it seems less necessary to give the info in the musical numbers list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
See also The Boy from Oz, Big Deal (musical), and Back to the 80s (musical) for examples of listing the various writers. Flami72 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ssilvers and Flami72: okay thanks for finding those. I guess there is precedent in doing so, so it’s okay to keep for HOH. Umimmak (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Frozen (musical) plot summary -- help please!

I reverted some edits to the Frozen (musical) plot summary, because the editor's spelling and grammar were poor, and these were their first edits on the Encyclopedia. However, it is quite possible that the changes they wished to make are the very ones that we are seeking to change the plot summary to conform to the Broadway version. Has anyone seen the show who can verify whether or not the changes do, in fact, help conform the summary to the Broadway version? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Foxes: The Musical deletion discussion

Grateful for participation of Musicals project members at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foxes:_The_Musical_(2nd_nomination) Boneymau (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Cruft

Speaking of cruft, when anyone sees that an article has excessive information about casts or other cruft, please don't be shy about inviting others at this Talk page to help out at the article or comment at the article's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Separate articles for individual productions of a show?

This is an idea I've been ruminating on for a while and would like to get people's thoughts on it. Why don't we have articles like Show Boat (1994 Broadway revival), or Wicked (West End production)? As far as I know, this wouldn't violate any policies or guidelines, but I've never seen it done. If you look at a page like Grease (musical), I think structurally it really suffers from trying to cram in information about so many different productions. "Production history" has 14 subsections, "Musical numbers" has subsections for 6 different iterations, "Awards and honors" is split up by production, and Notable cast members is frankly a horror show - it has columns listing the cast for 10 different productions. There's no chance anyone can read that on mobile. And I don't mean to single out Grease - this kind of tall-and-wide cast table is a very common feature of musical articles.

For readers who just want an overview of the musical, detailed information (cast, production history, critical reception, awards, modifications to the show) about each of many productions is just going to get in their way. But that information should be on Wikipedia somewhere if it's verifiable. Because some readers do want to read about one specific production. And it would be nice to have that information organized nicely (with an infobox, illustrations, and following WP:WPMT/AS) in one place. In many places where we wikilink to the article on a musical, I think our readers would be better served by a wikilink to a specific production (or both). e.g. For four months, beginning July 2001, she played Sally Bowles in the long-running 1998 revival of Cabaret. (God knows there's a lot of verifiable, encyclopedic information specifically about that revival. It's been running for 20+ years!)

There's a question of which productions should get a separate article, rather than being fully described in the main article for the musical. Only Broadway or West End productions? What about off-Broadway? Only professional resident productions? What about tours? Non-equity tours? Should it just be any production that meets WP:GNG? I don't have the answer here, but I'd like to start with a few of the best possible candidates that will have lots of RS coverage (e.g. Tony-winning Broadway revivals), see how it goes, and then go from there. Definitely not suggesting we immediately do a huge overhaul of existing articles en masse.

Ultimately, it would be nice if a musical's "main" article gave an overview of the show, with a focus on the original production (including workshops, tryouts, etc.), with a brief summary of notable subsequent productions (with links to the full articles, per WP:SS). For the few very popular shows that have had lots of notable productions (over a dozen, say), it might be more appropriate to describe and link to only the most significant ones, and also link to an article like List of productions of My Fair Lady that lists all notable productions. The main article could also integrate information about later productions to discuss any notable changes in how the show has been presented or thought of over time. e.g. Show_Boat#Racial_issues which talks about how changes in the social context have led to modifications of lyrics/dialogue in later productions, or led to objections against modern attempts to stage it.

Thoughts? Colin M (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested to see Ssilvers response which I'm sure will be cogently argued (as always). My initial response is a question: When is an individual production so notable that it requires a new article? My answer is: almost never. I can't think of any reference work that has provided separate entries for the same work (even when that work has been substantially modified, for example the opera Boris Godunov). I've not investigated all the articles you mention which enumerate different productions. My response to that has always been that those articles are victims of Wikipedia's penchant for "recentism" and that few merit more than a brief mention, unless there's a major change in the work, or a very unique production/direction aspect. - kosboot (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I tried to address that question (or, well, explicitly postpone addressing that question) in my third paragraph above. But I'll try for a more direct answer. Basically, once the amount of information in the main article about a production exceeds some threshold X where it starts getting in the way of a reader who just wants a summary of the musical, I think that production should be split into a separate article. What is X? I don't have a strong opinion on where it should be. 1 paragraph is probably fine. 8 paragraphs is definitely too much. X is somewhere in there. But I don't think it's at all hard to find productions about which you can write 8 paragraphs of verifiable, encyclopedic content. I'd like to start with those clear cases. I'm not so concerned about how the more borderline cases should be treated.
I disagree with your recentism interpretation. Broadway revivals get a ton of RS coverage. I don't see why most of the information from that coverage (whether it be a review, a profile of the production's origins, a story about its financial success or failure, coverage of an award nom/win, a major cast replacement, etc.) should be discarded, whereas it would be fit for Wikipedia if it was about an original production.
Your point about reference works is interesting. My first thought is WP:NOTPAPER. It's not unusual for Wikipedia to cover topics at a greater level of granularity than would be feasible in a traditional reference book (e.g. the very common practice of having separate articles for each episode of a TV show). Colin M (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd be strongly against the idea of having a separate article for subsequent productions of musicals. The issues you have highlighted with Grease (musical) are fixable - in-fact I've just gone and immediately removed the schools production/tv productions song lists and also two cast lists with no notable cast members (the cruise ship cast....). I'm going to look at Dear Evan Hansen as an example of a relatively new musical which is starting to have international productions. Already, a lot of the information in the productions section isn't needed in the sense of being in an encyclopedia, and a lot could be removed. Do we need full cast lists for the May/July and September readings in table form? Personally, I would have it as the Off-Broadway Cast, Broadway Cast, First US Tour cast and (eventually) original West End cast. It's at what point do you stop adding to these tables (Toronto Cast, Sydney Cast, Melbourne Cast, 2nd US tour cast etc.). Could notable actors from these productions be listed in prose? Why are the understudies listed? Mark E (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the improvement to Grease (musical), but I think it still suffers from the same fundamental problem of giving an excess of detail about various individual productions of the musical, to the detriment of readers who are seeking information about the musical as a whole. The only solutions I see to this problem are to remove the information or put it somewhere else. I'm not in favour of removal, because most of it is verifiable and encyclopedic.
I don't think a recent musical like Dear Evan Hansen is a good comparison. The cases where splitting is most needed are old musicals that have had major revivals. Think My Fair Lady, Show Boat, Guys and Dolls, or Chicago (musical). Colin M (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, here's a semi-related discussion I had on the talk page of Wicked (musical) a few months ago (with Mark E - small world), about the issue of production-itis in that article. I proposed splitting the "Productions" section into a List of Wicked productions article. No-one commented on the split idea (other than Mark E, who thought it wasn't necessary) and Mark ended up making some very good edits that removed a lot of cruft, and addressed the overall article size issue, so I didn't pursue the split any further. I still think it would improve that article though. (In this case, I don't think any of the individual productions would be good candidates for splitting off into whole articles) Colin M (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you've highlighted an issue with this project's section on article structure. If gives guidelines for how to include productions, but it does not clarify which productions qualify for being notable. As it's currently written, it implies that all productions can be included which I don't believe is the intention. - kosboot (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually it does have a brief line about this: Only professional productions should be included in this section, following the conditions set in WP:NOTABILITY. Amateur productions will be deleted without discussion. Colin M (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
And what is a noteworthy production for a new, off-off-Broadway musical is different from what is noteworthy for Oklahoma! which has had probably a hundred thousand productions worldwide. In the latter case, we need to limit it to truly noteworthy productions, whereas in the former, all of the professional productions can usually be listed. So, kosboot, this is an editorial judgment call, and a WP:CONSENSUS must be formed at each article. We could add *factors* to the A/S guidelines like how long did the production run? How many of the leading players were notable persons? Were the director/choreogrpaher/designers notable? Was the production also broadcast? Did it break box-office records in an important market? Did the cast album win the Grammy? etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but now you're talking about something other than what WPMT/AS says. WP:NOTEWORTHY is very different from WP:NOTABLE. WP:N gives simple criteria for notability: significant coverage in reliable sources. Colin M (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The guideline says that if something receives a lot of coverage it is "presumed" notable. But it gives us a big fat way out: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." When a musical has had numerous productions, then information about individual productions is "indiscriminate" or specialist information, and a consensus can and should be reached that only the most WP:NOTEWORTHY information should be included. There are people who are paid to churn out press coverage of theatre productions. There is a whole industry built on spewing out reviews, feature articles and human interest stories involving and promoting theatre productions, regardless of whether the production is of particular note. So, while you *could* write an article about a single production, I would argue that this is unencyclopedic and would violate our mission to give *useful, helpful* information to our readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I'm late. I disagree strongly with this proposal. When readers of this encyclopedia around the world want to know about South Pacific (musical), they should be able to go to one article that gives all the information about the creation of the show, its text and music and the many productions of it. If lots of editors started articles on individual productions, they would very (very -- did I say very) likely not be as well written as our article on the musical (an FA article) and would not put the various productions in context. For example, if an editor (let's say an enthusiastic young person), wrote an article on a specific local production that he just saw, what would he write about it? Would he write an excellent article? Unlikely. Instead, numerous stubs and poor-quality articles would spring up that gave readers a misleading view of musicals that have multiple productions, or else there would be multiple articles that rehashed the whole background and creation history of the musical up to the point of the production being discussed. A lot of them would probably plagiarize (and copyvio) the production's theatre program. As a matter of quality control, if not simply a matter of notability, having one article for each musical is much more sensible and helps us deliver high-quality content about musicals to our readers. More detailed information about each production is specialist information that does not belong here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I think we Wikipedians have gone 'way overboard on Awards and cast lists for many musicals. I have suggested, to placate those who are obsessed with awards, that the massive awards tables be moved to a separate article, such as List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked, leaving a narrative summary of the most major awards in the article. And I have argued that we should limit cast tables to original productions + Broadway and West End casts, instead listing the notable performers from each major production in the Productions sections. See how we did the roles/cast table in South Pacific (musical). The best thing is for us to remove cruft in article, not create overly detailed specialist articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Well at least that's one thing we can agree on. I'm all for splitting long awards sections off into separate articles and leaving a summary. (What I'm proposing is basically the same process applied to the "Productions" section.) Colin M (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"We shouldn't have articles about X because people who would try to write them might make mistakes" is not argument I'm ready to accept for any value of X, and I think it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
Not sure what you mean by "specialist information" - are you referring to one of the specific sections of "What Wikipedia is not"? The information to be included in an article on a production would be things like:
  • When it opened and closed
  • What theatre it played at
  • Where/when it went through tryouts
  • Who the principal cast were
  • Who directed and choreographed
  • How it was received by critics
  • Notable modifications (e.g. songs added/removed)
  • Awards
This is the kind of basic information (with regard to a Broadway revival) that's discussed in plenty of widely-disseminated RS. It's not something we need to dig through fan wikis, trade magazines, or technical manuals to find. Colin M (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
If a production is not noteworthy, then by definition, the information that you list above for the production is "indiscriminate" and so the production is not notable. I've made all my arguments above. You may disagree. I think some common sense needs to be applied, and that it is far better to have one excellent article about Oklahoma! that lists the most important productions, than a bunch of little articles with varying degrees of information about the exact same topic, plus the information that you list above that either (a) has already been (or should be) listed in the main article for the most important productions, or (b) is unimportant to anyone except the cast and crew of that production and their mommies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, I think you're confusing terminology. WP:NOTABILITY is clearly defined under Wikipedia policy. A thing is notable if it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Any Broadway production will meet this bar without a doubt.
I don't see WP:INDISCRIMINATE applying here. The sub-examples enumerated there are "summary-only descriptions of works", "lyrics databases", "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "exhaustive logs of software updates". I don't think the sort of article being proposed remotely resembles any of those things. Colin M (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. Obviously, I think it is you who does not understand the relationship between noteworthiness and notability. At the risk of repeating myself: WP:NOTABILITY says that if something receives a lot of coverage it is only to be "presumed" notable. It goes on to state, in a bullet point: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If a production is not noteworthy then, by definition, information about it is "indiscriminate" and so the production is not notable. All of the important information about the most notable productions can be given in the main article. Again, creating little articles about lots of individual productions is unencyclopedic as it would violate our mission to give *useful, helpful* information to our readers. I feel less strongly about whether there could be a sub-article listing more productions per WP:SS; if that would mollify someone's hunger for trivia, I think it would be comparatively harmless. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your other reply above. The tenor of our conversation is starting to get snippy, so I'm not sure it's constructive to try to continue it at this point. Colin M (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Slipper and the Rose that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Mussicel film

Can anyone help fill in Highest-grossing musical films by year chart Fanoflionking 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ziegfeld Follies of 1919

I've been holding on to material for an article on the Ziegfeld Follies of 1919 for over 2 years so I felt like it was time to get rid of it. It was so exhausting getting through the program that I couldn't seem to find much about the show itself. A big warning: This is a show where most of what you read has been repeated and embellished from earlier writers. So when people today say "the most opulent of all the Follies" - they are not basing it on anything more than what previous writers said. Finding actual contemporary criticism was hard because there isn't all that much. Since I seem to have struck a brick wall on this, I'm hoping others will take up where I left off. - kosboot (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a very good start, especially for a revue. I've done some copy edits. If anyone has time, many of the commas need to be moved outside the quotes, per MOS:LQ. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem ...

An editor has created articles on all of Frederica Von Stade's entire discography. I have AfDed all of the classical albums, as they all fail all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. However, there are a few musical-theatre studio albums, and I can't offhand find a similar guideline for musical-theatre albums, although it's clear those articles need to be AfDed as well. Can someone help out by AfDing these with an appropriate rationale?:

Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have never started an AfD, but if the album never charted or was at least nominated for a Grammy, then it doesn't seem notable. We can add those criteria to the MT article structure guidelines.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Since the first point under WP:NALBUMS reads Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it., wouldn’t these all be fine since these articles all have multiple reviews in reputable sources about the recordings? Umimmak (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Musical theatre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Musical theatre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Musical theatre until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Review Request: Joseph Church (Music Director)

Hey - I wrote an article about Joseph Church, the original music director of Lion King, The Who's Tommy, and the author of Music Direction for the Stage but it's still waiting for review. I was wondering if someone in this group might have a second to give it a look over? There was a comment that there wasn't enough significant coverage but I added new sources since then. Many thanks! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Church_(Musical_Director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPiano (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added wikilinks, removed some WP:PEACOCK and fixed date format. Also, you don't need "language=en" in the English Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about regional vs Broadway in theater tables

Hi all.

I am just wondering if there is one standard, agreed-upon format when listing theater roles in a table for an actor/actress.

For example, in the Taylor Louderman roles table, roles that were on Broadway are listed in bold, but on the Barrett Wilbert Weed roles table, there is an additional column for the 'category' of theater and then it specifies regional or Broadway. Is either way correct? Which method should I use on other actors' pages?

Thank you! Apathyash (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Bolding Broadway roles is a terrible idea. Boneymau (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No, there is definitely no standard, agreed-upon format. I do not believe that bolding is kosher at all, and I don't think you'll find anything like that in any Featured Articles, but I like the idea of a notes/category column. The problem is that actors can be primarily film actors or TV actors who sometimes do theatre, or actors who are also pop stars, or who do any three or four of these equally, or actors who mostly do theatre. Consider someone like Kristin Chenoweth, who is a theatre actor, a recording artist and has had major TV roles and many film roles. Does the Musical Theatre project get to say what the format of her Filmography lists ought to be? Or Hugh Jackman? I'm afraid it's going to be a little ad hoc. Personally, in B-class articles or above, I'd rather see an actor's major roles described in beautiful narrative text in the article and have the voluminous filmography/role lists moved to a list sub-article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Notable cast replacements

Hello all,

It was recently pointed out to me that WP Musical Theatre's policy with cast replacements is to only list them if they are notable, meaning bluelinked. For the past week or so, there has been persistent attempts to add Beetlejuice the Musical cast replacements to the page; however, the actors in question do not have their own Wikipedia pages and thus, I believe according to the project standards, should not be listed in the Cast section of the article.

In an attempt to compromise, I did mention the replacements in the prose section of Productions. I put a note on the talk page and an invisible comment reminding editors to not put in the cast replacements unless they are bluelinked. Nevertheless, anonymous editors continue to attempt to add the new cast members to the Cast list. Is there anything else I can do? Should I talk to someone about getting the page semi-protected? Or just continue to undo the edits and hope that it dies down soon? I would appreciate any advice. Apathyash (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good work. I think it will die down some over time, but I would not object to semi-protection. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Falsettos audio files

Hey there! I'm a big fan of the musical Falsettos and I have been working on the article for the past few days. I think it could greatly benefit from some music samples (I'm thinking 3-4 of them). I don't have my computer that has music downloaded on it. Would anyone be willing to upload some samples for me? Cheers, Basilisk4u (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Looking quickly at the article it appears that you added a lot of good content. I notice a couple of things. First, the "Themes" section is in a weird position. I would probably put it below the Reception section, or at least below the Productions section. Some of the photos are awkwardly placed to interfere with headings and/or tables and, in any case, would probably not make it through a peer review or a FAC. Most importantly, the plot summary is way too long. It should be cut down by about 50%. Can you try to slim it down to the most essential plot points? If you can cut down the plot summary significantly and want me to review the article more closely and give you my impressions, I am willing to do that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks so much for lending a hand! Yes, the article is definitely not ready for FAC or anything like that. I am going to create a background/history section that details how the musical came to be, challenges in its promotion, etc. I also think that other themes in the musical, such as masculinity, could be explored in the "Themes" section. I've trimmed down the plot summary fairly significantly and I think the length is comparable to articles of other musicals that have been listed as good/featured articles. If you get a chance, let me know what you think! Again, I really appreciate your help. Basilisk4u (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made a start. The plot section is now probably an acceptable length, or close to it. Yeah, the background section is currently totally unreferenced, so I hope you get to that sooner rather than later. Let me know what you think of my copy edits so far; if I made any factual errors, please correct. I left you some hidden questions that you can see on the article's edit screen; please see if you can resolve them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Your copyedits look great! I've added a background/history section now. There are still many of your questions unaddressed, so I will work on them in the coming days. Thanks so much! Basilisk4u (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made a little more progress and left you some comments in the edit summaries. Note that the 1993 national tour is entirely missing from the productions section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, and yes I agree that we need something about why he decided to combine the shows as well as information about the 1993 tour. I'm a little confused about some of the rephrasing such as "Each musical was developed during rehearsals, particularly as Finn is a disorganized writer and composer" - I'm not sure if that can be stated as a fact if it was just the opinion of one cast member. I think the quote is needed here. Also, the source doesn't mention that Lapine and Bogardus were actually racquetball partners, just that they were two people working on the musical that happened to know about the sport. Basilisk4u (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Finn confirmed it himself in the other source, that he relied on Lapine, who was more organized. We could say, "according to Bogardus", but I think it's common knowledge about Finn and an essential part of the development of the show. I agree that it would be better to add another source to bolster this, but I have no doubt that we are, if anything, soft-selling it. What Bogardus really said is that Finn was such a mess that the shows would surely not have gotten done without Lapine. The source most certainly does say that Lapine and Bogardus played racquetball together for years. Please look again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I've finished giving it a once-over. I'd say that Themes should go after Reception, as analysis-type sections usually go further down. You've definitely kicked the article up a notch. I think it's close to B-class now; and I'd say that after you finish with it, it probably will be. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Variety, Billboard and The Stage

For those of us into older musicals (say pre-1960), the periodicals Variety, Billboard and the London-based The Stage provide an enormous amount of information. Full runs of these periodicals have been scanned and are available through a ProQuest package, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. Normally one has to view this valuable database (which contains scanned issues of over 40 periodicals, many of them having to do with film and popular music) on an institution's premises. But because of the Covid-19 crisis, many institutions have allowed off-site access to this database. There are only about 50 institutions that pay for this database (no individual access allowed). If you are currently registered or are an alumnus, you might be able to gain access offsite (I am a New York Public Library card holder so I can get access):

Being a fan of pre-war musicals and performers, I have heavily used database. Apologies for not sharing this information sooner - and good luck! - kosboot (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if your institution doesn't offer direct access, you can search for a ProQuest product such as "Academic Search Premier." Once you have entered that database, on the search screen you should see and select an option "Change Databases." Once you do that, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive Should be one of the options. - kosboot (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Awards - Can we get a consensus, please?

The awards tables for popular musicals are too long. I would like to gather a consensus to remove from them everything except Tony Awards, Olivier Awards, Drama Desk and, if the show never ran on B'way or West End, the highest award it was eligible for. Also, if the album won (not nominated) for a Grammy it should be noted, and a Pulitzer should be noted. I would remove Drama League, Critics Circle, etc. If editors want a "complete" table, they can create a subarticle with a complete table and leave a summary in the main article. What does everyone think? If people agree, I think we should clarify out Article Structure page about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we do exactly that a while ago? It's just that articles haven't been edited to comply with the guidance.Boneymau (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dream Ballet vs. Dream ballet

Please comment if you have an opinion: Talk:Dream Ballet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Titles: Plays, Musicals, Operas

Have re-ignited the discussion about whether plays, musicals, operas can be regarded as books ref titling articles, in case any of you want to feed into it. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think each project has its own policies that take into consideration same title by different authors, as well as titles in foreign languages. Where's the problem that this is trying to solve? - kosboot (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Georgia Stitt

I've done a little editing on her page and, since a new interview came out in Forbes, I've proposed that the notability banner could be removed. What does everyone else think? (I have in my notes that I'd like to rewrite the article too, at some point.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

One problem is that the article is so badly written, with stubby little paragraphs and all the name dropping (removing most of the names of the people who merely sing a song on her album would help a lot) and promotional statements "she is a champion of women artists...", that it looks like a collection of random junk. The article keeps saying: "She composed for..." What does this mean? Did she actually compose those things, or just write bits and pieces for them, not the songs? If you make the article read more clearly, so one can see what her most important accomplishments are, that would help a lot. For example, it lists shows that she has been the conductor or music director for in NY, but it doesn't say whether or not they were Broadway productions or community theatre. After you clarify these points, drop me a note, and I'll review the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ssilvers. It is dreadful, isn't it? It's hardly an article, really. I'd like to have a go at making it be an decent piece about her, which will take me a little while. I'll ping you when I'm done. (And since this is the first time I will have significantly altered or added to an article about theatre, I'm going to make a general theatre COI declaration on my user page, because it is a surprisingly small world and I have no idea how to figure out where the line is.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Noting that I am advised to steer well clear of any possible COI for a while, since I'm new around here - so I am leaving this one alone, but I see that you and User:KidAd have done excellent tidying already. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
BessieMaelstrom. Thanks for the props! I never edit in this subject area, but I will continue to perform cleanup work as needed. KidAd (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Antonyo awards

Should we be including the Antonyo awards in articles? Per WP:MT/AS#Response, awards sections should focus on major awards. Considering the Antonyos have been around for one season, are not created by an established nominating body, and are voted on by users (which we are supposed to be avoiding anyways per WP:UGC), I don't think they qualify. [7][8] Thoughts? BOVINEBOY2008 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Heavens no! Tonys, Oliviers certainly. Drama Desk, I guess so. Obies and Lortels if the show never played on Broadway. Then we get into no-man's land with Critics Circle, Drama League, Evening Standard Awards, etc. But Jefferson, Antonyo, etc. no, no, no! Again, if someone wants to make a sub-article and list every stupid little audience award, fine, but the main articles should stick to national awards that are noteworthy from a critical standpoint. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Tveit peer review

Hello all. I've listed the article Aaron Tveit for peer review, hoping to get it up to GA/FA someday. Any feedback from the Wikiproject members would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. Rfl0216 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick copy edit of the first few sections. Beware of WP:PEACOCK and name-dropping. You need to add a Critical reaction section where you discuss what critics have said about his performances and his strengths and weaknesses as an actor and/or singer. Make sure the WP:LEAD section gives an overview of his whole career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the copy edits. I’ll have to pull together reviews of his work and performances. Do you think the critical reception should be it’s own section, or should it just be incorporated in the prose of his career? Thanks again! Rfl0216 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I think a separate critical reception section would make it easier for the reader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe check out Elaine Page for another musical theatre FA, and Stanley Holloway. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for the the advice, and I'll definitely check our those two articles. Rfl0216 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Cast tables

Alright folks, I think we need to come to an agreement of what cast members should be included in cast table, and which casts. In my view, I think we should be including opening night casts to major productions (first production, B'way, WE, major region tours w/ notable cast members). This would mean not including amateur, regional, or small tour productions, tours that did not have a notable cast member, shows that have not had an opening night. Can anyone else weigh in on this? The article stemming this is Be More Chill (musical), whether or not to include the Chicago cast (which has not yet openend.) BOVINEBOY2008 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer that the cast tables included ONLY Broadway and West End opening night casts, unless the show has never played on either B'way or WE, in which case, it should contain the cast from the first significant professional production (or the most significant early production). The only exception, I think, is if the show has an exceptionally successful other production -- I mean a 10-year run off-Broadway, or a massive tour with millions of tickets sold. It appears that people insist on including US/UK national tour casts, but frankly they are rarely important to the history of the musical. I can live with them, as long as it is a significant national tour, not just a short tour or bus and truck production. However, I think it is important that we do NOT include extra international productions, like an Australian production mounted after the original West End production. Likewise, no Chicago or Toronto productions that follow a B'way opening. Also, *notable* (bluelinked) B'way and WE cast replacements can be noted below the table. And, OBVIOUSLY, per WP:CRYSTAL, I think it is important NEVER to include in the table any cast where the production has not opened yet! If people want to spend their time making massive tables of every silly cast, then they can create a sub-article for them, but the main article should not be cluttered up with this trivia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Certainly agree it should be a production's opening cast, not replacements. It also shouldn't include workshops (that can be covered in the Development section). However, what constitutes a production worthy of being in a cast table I think should be more criteria-based than strict rules, because it is situation-dependent. The notability of cast members in the production might be one criteria. The notability of the production in the history and profile of the musical might be another. Happy to have a maximum 5-6 casts though, which would force decisions of what is most notable for a particular musical. Boneymau (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The criteria I listed are "criteria-based", because B'way and the West End are the only major markets for theatre (plays and musicals). In both markets, significantly more than 10 million tickets and $1 billion box office grosses are realized. There is no other market that comes anywhere close, except the US and UK national tour markets. Other theatre markets -- Paris, Tokyo, Chicago, Sydney, anywhere, are dwarfed by the B'way and WE markets. Therefore, once a show has played on either B'way or the WE, you can remove any lesser productions from the table. The starry Chicago production should be described in the Productions section, but should not go in the table, IMO. If a show has numerous important productions, you can do a much more compact table the way we do it in The King and I, which is a Featured Article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We have different views. I happen to think there's a case for more than two columns in a cast table, but not more than 5-6 to keep it manageable. It could well be 5 Broadway productions (original production and 4 Broadway revivals) if that happened and is the best reflection of the significance of the work to all parts of the world. I see the King and I table of what actors played what roles as a complement to what is being discussed here, not a substitute. Boneymau (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd plump for w/end and b/way only unless there is a good reason to include any others (i.e. on a case-by-case basis). I shudder to think of a five column list for casts - where does one draw the line on which productions are notable enough for the addition of another column. We're not here to act as a directory of every performance. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
So, I don't think anyone disagrees that the OBC and OWEC should be listed, assuming it has opened. I guess the question is should we include the following
  • Workshop/reading casts
  • Original opening cast (try-outs/smaller venues)
  • Tours (Equity or otherwise)
  • Other significant productions (e.g. New York City Center, Hollywood Bowl, Off-B'Way, Off-West End)
  • B'way or WE revivals
  • Film adaptations (whether filmed live, like Newsies, or adapted like Hairspray (musical))
And then, at what point do we convert tables into something like The King and I? Like, should Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street#Casts or Into_the_Woods#Casting_history be converted? BOVINEBOY2008 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that we are only talking about the casting table. The Productions section, on the other hand, should note all of these except for workshops or readings that are, in context, not noteworthy. Here is my opinion:

  • Workshop/reading casts: Resounding NO. In fact, I would say workshop/reading casts should NEVER be included.
  • Tryout cast: NO, if the show has gone on to a longrunning full production elsewhere.
  • Tours -- only longrunning major US/UK national tours
  • Other significant productions: No, not in the table, unless the production is the most significant production that the show ever had.
  • B'way and WE revivals: Yes, unless they are limited runs/flops with few notable cast members
  • Film adapatatons: No. These should be mentioned in the Adaptations section, and they may have their own article.
  • For shows that have a lot of major productions, the treatment at The King and I is a much more compact treatment. Then, if someone wants to make a sub-article with a bigger casting table, be my guest. Would I do it this way for Sweeney Todd? Yes. For Into the Woods? No, I would just delete the columns for the parks, Australia and Hollywood Bowl. All of those casts (or at least the stars and notable principals) should be named in the Productions section, and for each show, there could be a sub article with all this crap and the "concert productions" table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did leave it a few days for others to chime in, and would say:

  • Workshop/reading casts: No
  • Tryout cast: No to tryout productions with essentially the same cast as a subsequent commercial run, but I think acceptable if a stand-alone production that wasn't primarily produced as a tryout. For example, original regional productions in the US often are 'tryouts' for Broadway, but in the UK they are often productions on their own terms.
  • Film adaptations: No, as per the logic above.

For shows that have had a lot of productions, maybe the King and I approach is the only one to use and we just scrap the cast table. However, I think there's a case to keep a cast table for shows that had had only a few productions, in part because that makes the cast of these productions inherently more significant in the context of the show. Boneymau (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I really feel this should be a case-by-case basis depending on the show/production. For example, Hamilton's Chicago production is noted in the article as having been historic in terms of box office returns as a sit-down run. It also featured a particularly notable cast: Karen Olivo, Arianna Afsar, Alexander Gemignani, Joshua Henry, and Samantha Marie Ware. Similar case for Wicked: Ana Gasteyer, Rondi Reed, Telly Leung, etc. I think there's a case to be made that a production that has the exact same creative team, mounted by the same producers, and features a notable cast should be included. --Muppet321 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Nick Cordero

Hello. There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Nick_Cordero#RFC about whether or not to include his cause of death in the infobox. Please feel free to contribute to it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations

This November, wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. We hope members of WP Musical Theatre will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Dave Stamper

Dave Stamper, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Article request- William Roy

Hi all. I just noticed that we lack an article on the composer, songwriter, conductor, and pianist William Roy (see these obits [9], [10], [11]). He had several musicals on Broadway, including a 1953 musical entitled Maggie starring Betty Paul and Keith Andes. There's a different Maggie (musical) from 1977 which may have incoming links meant for the 1953 Broadway production. If anybody cares to create the article, I would appreciate it. Perhaps WIlliam Roy (musician) would be the best DAB given his work in multiple musical activities. 4meter4 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Ismael Cruz Córdova 24,192 806 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Work needed at Fred Thompson (writer)

Hi all. I just created an article on a musical with a book by Thompson. To my surprise, the article has no list of works, no link to IBDB, and is not well constructed for adding lesser known works in the article. He also had no cats to organize his works, so I created Category:Musicals by Fred Thompson (writer). He was a highly prolific musical book writer, so there could be random musical articles that I didn't catch to add to the category that are also not mentioned in his article. If someone has time and/or interest to put together a list of works or a nav box, that would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that any of that is important. The article mentions all of Thompson's notable works, and I had no difficulty adding a mention of your new article, Here's Howe, to Thompson's article. You are wrong about IBDB -- it is cited in Footnote 9, and I believe that the EL rules say not to link an EL if it is already cited in the text. What do you mean that the article is "not well constructed" for adding lesser works? Do you mean that it is not cluttered up with unreferenced tables? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
No need to get snippy. Typically IBDB is placed in the external links section. Sorry I missed it buried in the notes. I didn't mean the article was not well constructed in terms of text, but rather it's difficult to put a wl into a lesser known work outside of a list of works without adding undue weight to the prose section of the article. This was a minor musical, and I simply was hoping for a list of works section to wl inside, not to add the work into the prose section. Thank you for your addition. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
After I read your first message under this heading, I went to the article expecting to see a crappy stub and was reminded that this is not the case. I disagree with your premise that it is difficult to put a wl to any notable work into the text. If the work is notable, it can be mentioned briefly in the text, the way I did it for Here's Howe. I'm not convinced that Thompson's non-notable works really need to be mentioned at all, but if someone does add a list of works, I hope that it will be well referenced, unlike the tables in many such articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Help requested with draft for Mary Setrakian

Hi! I am currently working on submitting this Articles for Creation draft for Mary Setrakian. I have met this subject before and have disclosed COI on my user page, this is a purely volunteer project on the part of myself and a friend of mine. There was also another Wikipedia user who created an article for Mary Setrakian in March of this year, but it was deleted quickly after it was created. It’s a little frustrating not knowing what was written as to avoid making their mistakes, and it would’ve been nice to know who wrote it so we could collaborate on this project. Nonetheless, I would love some assistance from fellow theatre people in starting anew with it!

Here is the draft: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Mary_Setrakian (this is also my first Wikipedia article, very much a learning process!)

I have consulted with some great helpers on Wikipedia already and the consensus so far is that this draft may have difficulty establishing notability due to its sources, and the article is also coming across more promotional than intended. What can I do to improve this article and increase its chances of being accepted upon the draft’s submission to AfC? Thank you for your time in helping out a newbie! ~ Menklife (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, you need to state which roles she played, and when. I left you some comments on the draft that you can see by clicking on "Edit". Her performing career is not notable, as far as I can tell from what you wrote -- she has been a working performer, just not a notable one. I don't know whether people at an AfD will consider a voice teacher to a few stars as notable; I think it will be a hard sell. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:NACTOR, but she does appear to have enough RS as a voice teacher to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: this appears to be a subject with possible marginal notability per WP:GNG. Marginal is the the worst kind of notability IMHO, and requires extra special effort, because it often results in articles that either invite original research or synthesis, appear unduly promotional ("resume-like"), or just plain suck even if they "technically" and barely pass some arcane, subjective metric of Wikipedia standards, because there aren't enough secondary sources to make a decent policy-compliant article. Better sources are needed. Nearly all of the unaffiliated sources seem to be passing mentions (notability is not inherited). Neither coaching famous people, nor appearing in notable productions, alone merits an article merely because their name is dropped in articles about their students, no more than any big city police officer or firefighter merit an article though even if they are named in every single crime or fire story in their city. The BroadwayWorld article is indistinguishable from a press-release. The Stanford Magazine profile seems to be the most in-depth source focused on Setrakian herself, but its use as an independent source per WP:GNG is dubious, since one of the purposes of alumni magazines is to shine the spotlight on alumni (and therefore themselves). The ArmeniaOnline article relies heavily on interview with the subject, and its use as a reliable or non-affiliated source is unclear (the fact that it ends with "To book tickets for her show at the Sydney Opera House, click here." does not bode well for independence). Based on the current sources provided, this subject may eventually warrant an encyclopedia article, but for right now it appears simply too soon. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Animalparty, I think you missed the most significant source, which is this television news segment from Australia. Voice teachers don’t typically become news stories, or draw international attention. I think she is borderline notable on the side of notability.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not a news story, it's an interview on an afternoon light entertainment talk show (The Daily Edition) that is basically a promo piece for her tour in Australia. Boneymau (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't view that video to comment on its use as a source, but I wrote she appears to be marginal, which is the same as borderline. On which side is a toss-up, which is probably why a previous article was deleted. If it's primarily an interview it might not count as a secondary source, but might among other sources contribute towards GNG. Living subjects warrant greater scrutiny than long deceased figures to ensure a fair and respectable encyclopedia article is possible (i.e. one that doesn't seem to be a rehashed "about me" page on an official website or staff directory, with a laundry list of media appearances), especially in an era where publicity is cheap and easy. Many Wikipedia articles on living borderline subjects are not something to strive for nor be proud of (not for readers, Wikipedians, or the subject themselves), even if 100% true and verifiable. If this draft is published as is, it will likely be nominated for deletion again, and so the burden is on the creators to provide high quality sources that can withstand the points I've raised. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, what you say is true.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. Many great points were raised. To add to that news video she did in Australia, she also appeared on the BBC in January 2021, though I have yet to find a source outside of this BBC journalist's twitter page and Setrakian's own YouTube page for the video. Anyway, I've updated the draft to reflect the changes that needed to be made, though there's no doubt I may have committed many errors and I am open to any and all feedback. Still figuring everything out and trying to find better sources, which has been difficult. I'm specifically trying to find a source for the exact year she performed as a swing in the US tour of Les Miserables, if anyone can help me find a reliable source with this information it'd be greatly appreciated! Also worth noting, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding it as I'm pretty new to the Wikipedia internal ecosystem, but she has been Red linked on the articles for Sierra Boggess and Richard Bunger Evans, included in these following lists of requested people (here and here), and a Wiki Education user & editor chose this subject for the article they created in March 2021 in their Wiki Education course, though you can see it got deleted, there was some significant peer review being done on the page. So from my understanding there seems to be some, if not very slight, demand for an article to be made for Mary Setrakian at the present moment, even if it must be pretty bare bones for now. I think having the draft with as many reliable sources on hand as possible will be helpful for when it can eventually become a more full article. Again, I'm still open to critique on what's been written so far, as I think this experience will help me become a better contributor here on Wikipedia even if it'll take a while for this particular article to be published due to it being just a bit too soon at the minute for a more in-depth article. I appreciate the edits made so far on the draft and welcome any more additional changes needing to be made. ~ Menklife (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

R.I.P. Karla Burns

Tony. nominee and Olivier Award winning actress Karla Burns died yesterday. The news was just announced today by media.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Estelle Liebling

Estelle Liebling is generally known in the classical music world as the voice teacher of Beverly Sills. In looking at the latest revision of her article, I see she also taught quite a number of people associated with musical theatre. Take a look at the bottom of the her article (to see the list of her pupils) and see if you think she should be also come under the aegis of this project. - kosboot (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Menklife, please look at the Liebling article to see what a notable voice teacher's background should be. A better possibility for an article on a voice teacher might be Joan Lader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ssilvers I very much enjoyed researching and putting together the Estelle Liebling article, but I don't think we should be requiring every voice teacher article to rise to that level of significance. That would be like saying all composers should be as notable as Mozart in order to have an article. Liebling is a giant in the field of voice pedagogy with a lot of scholarly references available. Perhaps a better guide, would be someone with a more modest degree of references such as Florence Kimball, the teacher of Leontyne Price and Annamary Dickey. The issue with writing on notable teachers is usually they aren't acknowledged until they are dead in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. The only article I can think of on wikipedia of a living voice teacher (who wasn't already notable as a performer), and who had good references is Florence Birdwell (recently deceased, but had an article for years before her death).4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe an article I wrote on a voice teacher, Cécile Gilly which I think is notable, but barely. - kosboot (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Gilly and Birdwell are better examples. It is self-evident, however, that voice teachers are less notable, inherently, than composers, who create original, enduring works that can be performed repeatedly, adapted and reach billions of listeners and audience members over time. Not all professions are equally likely to confer notability. For example, there are lots of great kindergarten teachers, but not many of them are notable, even if they have had famous students. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Generally kindergarten teachers aren't considered as vitally connected to the careers of their students. I would argue that a better analogy would be comparing voice teachers to coaches in athletics, where the direct outcome of their teaching has an impact on the ongoing professional success of the individual. Most working opera singers (and many musical theatre performers) still work with a teacher or coach in the same way professional athletes work with a coach. Coaches get a lot more attention in the press than the teachers/coaches behind working singers by nature of fandom. Ultimately, I do think voice teachers that produce a high number of successful students are notable for the impact their work had on the recordings made by those students, and the success their students had in live performance. I do take your point on composers producing reproducible works. Obviously teachers like Liebling who published a considerable volume of influential material are more likely to be notable than those who simply taught students without adding to published vocal pedagogy literature. In the end it simply comes down to whether there are reliable sources available to satisfy GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that we are coming dangerously close to agreeing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Eyes needed on My Coloring Book and formatting question

Hi all, I know this Kander and Ebb tune isn't from one of their musicals, but we need eyes on it. The song got nominated for the Grammy Award for Song of the Year in 1963, and yet it was blanked in this edit and redirected to Barbra Streisand (whose version wasn't the one that got the award noms), even though the song has been recorded by many artists and charted by artists other than Streisand. Anyway, I'd appreciate some watchlist adds in case it gets blanked again. I also added the musicals banner tag, given its a Kander and Ebb tune that I believe got thrown into a later musical revue of their material if memory serves. Also, the inboxes in the article are problematic and I'm not sure what to do with them. Originally the Streisand ones were at the top, and it looks like a Streisand enthusiast tried to make it like one of her album pages. Some input figuring out how to reconfigure, and what should remain and what should be chopped would be helpful. The referencing was pretty bad, so I have added a few sources but more sourcing is still needed. Thanks for any help in advance.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Update. I have sourced the article fairly well. Still not sure what to do with the Streisand album inboxes. The song was used in the Off-Broadway revue, And the World Goes ‘Round: The Songs of Kander and Ebb in 1991. 4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Rodgers and Hammerstein up for deletion

Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 25.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations for the musical Cats

Hi all. I am writing this to ask for your feedback on List of awards and nominations for the musical Cats and the potential of nominating it to be a featured list. I am also struggling a bit because the Musical Theatre WikiProject has never had a featured list of a musical (or a stage play) before, which can be used as a reference. I am expanding the list to the best of my ability but any help or comment is greatly appreciated. Băng Tỏa (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I gave it a once over. I would remove the material from the article that does not concern the musical's awards, such as the assertions about the productions holding long-run records. That information, if properly referenced, should go in the main article. If you want more input, you could go to WP:Peer review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Hugh Jackman

There's an RFC at Talk:Hugh_Jackman#RFC_about_listing_singer_in_lead_sentence about whether or not to list singer in the lead sentence. Feel free to participate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cullen and Carthy

Hello, WikiProject,

I came across this draft as I did my daily review of expiring, stale drafts and unlike 99% of the drafts I see, this one is an actual article. I postponed G13 deletion for another six months. I'm bringing it to your attention in case any editors here are interested in British & Irish turn-of-the-century music hall performers and could look it over. Thanks for anyone who is interested. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:List of Broadway productions by year

I am currently working on a three year project that could use attention/help. It is a list of Broadway productions by year, and a very helpful resource can be found in the talk page. Regards, Heart (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this list? Is it more useful than the IBDb in some way? It doesn't show the number of previews and performances of each show, and it seems to be largely unreferenced. It doesn't show creatives or cast. Also, it only shows Broadway shows. No London shows, no off-Broadway or off-off-Broadway shows, no regional shows.... It seems to me that between IBDb and Playbill, we already have a lot of information about Broadway shows -- certainly more information than any other kind of shows. It would seem more useful to have a list of off-Broadway shows (or maybe just off-Broadway shows that ran for more than, say, 99 performances, or some other cutoff). -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
You could ask that question about a lot of articles. What's the purpose of the list article Tony Award for Best Musical? After all, you can already find a list of award winners and nominees on the official Tony Awards website and on IBDb. That the information is already available elsewhere isn't a reason not to write an article - in fact it's a requirement in order to write the article in the first place. Colin M (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Our clean, tight list of winners of the top award in Broadway musical theatre, showing the key information, in our hyperlinked environment, is arguably more useful than any comparable source for that info. However, the list that HeartGlow is building will be a very long list of shows that will include a lot of non-notable info (and quite a bit of trivia, it appears) will be incomplete in many respects, and, as far as I can tell, will be less useful than other available sources in this area. I am simply asking them to justify it by coming up with one or more reasons to demonstrate why it will be more useful to our readers than other available sources. Perhaps I am missing something. If not, it appears to me that the list, if completed, would be the subject of a WP:AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I am simply asking them to justify it by coming up with one or more reasons to demonstrate why it will be more useful to our readers than other available sources. Again, this isn't a material consideration for AfD. Is our Oscar Wilde article more useful than the corresponding entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, or the many book-length biographies of Wilde that have been written over the years? Maybe not, but that would never be entertained as a reason to delete the article. Colin M (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and WP:NOTDIR. Also, our articles are more useful than corresponding EB articles (or they can be), as they can constantly improve, whereas, EB has limitations that have been discussed elsewhere. And our articles must be distilled into entries that give the most important information about a topic in a short, efficient article; not book-length treatments. That is why most of us work on WP -- to make it the best encyclopedia in the world. In any case, I don't see you contributing to this list. This user came here to ask people for help building this list. If they can't give a reason why it's a particularly useful list to add to the encyclopedia, I would not contribute. I think some common sense is worth exercising. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter Pan (1954 musical)

Do we need all those minor characters in the Cast table? I would remove them and just list the major characters. Notable actors who have played these minor characters (there are not many!) can be mentioned in the narrative paragraphs of the appropriate paragraph of the Productions section. An IP is edit-warring about it at the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Which Casts to Include

I noticed a discussion on a musical's talk page where users were debating whether or not to include the original Australian cast. Two users decided against it, arguing that if one non-Broadway and non-West End cast was included, when would it end? However, plenty of other musicals (such as Phantom and Wicked) include the original casts for non-Broadway and non-West End. RaCJ1325 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Hamilton here. I have read through the points raised on the articles talk page and If the Australian production can't have a cast listed, then surely the second and third US tours shouldn't either (or even the first?).

The WPMT Guidelines state: For the original Broadway or West End production, there may be a cast list, with notable actors bluelinked, or the casting may be described in prose. Please do not delete such lists. However, there should not be full lists of replacement casts. Notable replacement actors can be named either next to the original cast list or in prose in the description of the production. Other productions should merely name the notable actors and production team members who have Wikipedia articles and can be blue-linked, unless their names are important to an understanding of the musical and its history. A citation to the full cast lists can be given so that the information is easily accessible to anyone who needs this information.

This is not the case currently for many articles though.Mark E (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

These casting tables are out of control. They should contain the principal cast members (not minor characters) of: (1) the original professional production of the musical, wherever it was (not workships, the first full production), unless that production went directly to B'way or West End; (2) All B'way and West End productions; (3) US/UK National tours that were long-running, substantial productions, not brief tours or bus and truck type productions; (4) any other extraordinarily long-running (years long), starry productions. Normally, Australian and other major productions should not be listed in the table, but the major leads and other notable cast SHOULD be listed in the narrative paragraph in the Productions section). An exception would be, for example, where an Australian production was extraordinarily successful and long-running with an unusually notable cast and crew. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Curious as to why you would deem US/UK National tours as more worthy of a cast list than the original Australian sit down production? Both are outside the scope of what is listed in the project guidelines. This in particular for Hamilton which lists a second and third tour cast. But I agree, many of these tables are messy and overly detailed. Mark E (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I would be in favor of eliminating national tour casts from the cast tables. However, the US and UK (and B'way/West End) theatre markets are many times larger than musical theatre markets anywhere else in the world. This project has recognized that fact from the beginning, despite the same question being raised from time to time by residents of Chicago, Toronto/Canada, Australia, France/Paris, Japan, etc. I think the casting tables are redundant -- the Productions section should adequately mention the stars and notable players -- but if we must have them, we need to draw the line so that they do not have dozens of columns. A better, more compact presentation can be seen at The King and I, where a long-running, starry production from Australia or Canada could have its stars listed in the table. Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

An editor has requested for How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying to be moved to How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (musical). Since you had some involvement with How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). GoingBatty (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

All the King's Horses (film)

Just discovered this article on a musical film that needs work if anyone is interested and has time. I put the project's banner on it's talk page. It's the film version of a 1934 Broadway musical All the King Horses which we currently do not have an article on. See: https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-production/all-the-kings-horses-11552 Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Our project banner is for stage musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, although that seems a rather pedantic approach to what is essentially the same genre but in a different medium. One would think that the musical theatre project would be the best project to look after articles about films that are adapting musicals from the stage to screen. The opera project looks after television operas for example. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Our project's "Scope" description begins:

  • Inclusions
  • Any and all articles pertaining to Musical theatre on Wikipedia including, but not limited to:
musicals (including revues and Victorian burlesques, but excluding musical films)

It says very clearly "excluding musical films". That has not changed since this project was established. You have been working on musical theatre articles for many years. Why have you never questioned this before? It is because you know that this project has never covered musical films within its scope. Part of the reason is because the film project has been very assertive of its sovereignty (including its article structure rules and category trees) over musical films. This has helped to keep us out of arguments with the film project about article structure, categories, etc., and IMO it has worked well so far. That doesn't stop anyone from working on a film article -- I've worked on a lot of musical film articles -- but they're not within our project scope. That's just a historical (and I think useful) Wikipedia fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I've never thought about it until now. Personally I think shared responsibility would be beneficial and preferable over the current status quo; particularly due to the many factual errors and misrepresentations I find in musical film articles. Many times the film articles completely miss the fact that the film was derived from a stage musical (as was the case in this instance), or misrepresent or make errors in describing the source material and its connection to the film. I would think that the musical theatre project would produce higher quality articles than what is being produced by WikiProject Film. Just my two cents.4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
We can improve the article without putting our banner on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What's On Stage Awards

I suggest that this edit be reverted -- We should list the Olivier Awards, but not the What's On Stage Awards, which are audience-voted awards. I don't think we should list all the minor awards, except in separate list articles that purport to have a complete list of awards. What does everyone think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

David Firth (actor)

Someone is trying to [delete this article]. Granted, it is currently poorly referenced. Can anyone help, especially someone with access to British newspaper databases? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella

A user called TravBrady moved/renamed all the articles about musicals named Cinderella to *date names* instead of composer/author names. See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/TravBrady This strikes me as a bad idea. Unlike films, we should not name musicals by year, since a musical can be written in one year, published in another, have a concept album in another, premiere in another, be broadcast in another, and then be revived over and over, with the most important production not necessarily being the original production. Do others agree that we should undo these moves and leave a clear Talk page section so that the reason for the naming is clear? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
[Copied from the Talk page at Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical)]: :It would seem Cinderella (Rodgers and Hammerstein musical) has been moved too. I would support you in returning both to their original names.Mark E (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone Down to Tackle "Raggedy Ann"?

The article for Raggedy Ann is kind of a mess. The plot's too long, there are unsourced sections, excessive detail, an overall unencyclopedic tone, and citing/sourcing issues. Apparently, this forgotten flop has gained a following on Tumblr and people there are trying to resurrect it, similar to what happened w/ Be More Chill. I have a feeling any modification would spark an edit war, as this article has the feeling of a passion project.

Anyone want to help tackle it or at least advise me how to do so w/o running afoul of the Tumblr crowd? My first thought was to start a discussion on the talk page. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Sound of Music

Someone wants to move The Sound of Music to make it a non-primary topic, arguing that the film version is more important than the musical. Feel free to join the discussion on the musical's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: The requested move does not make the film a primary topic (nor does it state that the film is "more important than the musical"). The move request is to disambiguate all forms of "The Sound of Music". Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The proponent of the move does in fact state: "The Best Picture-winning 1965 film appears to hold at least equal, if not higher, historical standing than the stage musical". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Archive_14&oldid=1232907337"