Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Archive 15

Reliable sources?

I haven't edited theatrical articles much at all on wikipedia. Can folks tell me if playbill, theatrely and broadwayworld are reliable sources? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm less familiar with theatrely but Playbill and Broadway World are both very much legit. Umimmak (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge Playbill and Broadway World are the gold standard for Theatrical Productions in the United States. PonyExprezz (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Playbill and BroadwayWorld are both RSs, and I see that Theatrely has an editorial staff and staff critics; they feature theatre news, reviews, interviews and other editorial features. After reading a few of their reviews, I thought them well written and knowledgeable. You didn't ask this, but everyone should know that IBDB is a RS (unlike IMDB). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Playbill and BWW are my go to sources for Broadway. For West End/UK, I tend to use Whatsonstage.Mark E (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as long as the BroadwayWorld articles used are the editorial ones, and not the ones that are literally just someone's media release which is not a WP:RS. Many disingenuous editors try to imply the latter are the former. Boneymau (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, some BWW pieces are basically reprinted press releases. Those should be treated as WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

We Will Rock You

Went on to look for some information on We Will Rock You and the article was extremely difficult to navigate. I've gone on and trimmed down the productions section which was particularly bloated. As for the cast lists in the article, there are 13 just for London, all with understudies and full ensemble listed. Would anyone object to using a more standard format and including productions with notable cast members in a table, with any notable replacements listed below? Mark E (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Incredibly bloated. I have made further nips and tucks to the productions section. Yes, I agree that you should delete all the trivial cast info and make a table with the major productions and long-running starry ones (principal cast only, with blue-linked replacements footnoted). The plot summary could be trimmed. The Variations section should note only notewothy changes, with all the trivia trimmed away. The Shows with Queen section seems ridiculous. Can't that be reduced to a paragraph somehow? The Characters section is completely unnecessary. They will be listed in the new cast table, and anything noteworthy about each character should be included in the plot summary. The Music section also needs trimming. I removed the stuff about the film projects that never happened. Let me know if you need help with any sections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What title should a musical have if a new production with a different name is planned?

Please provide opinions at Talk:Bad Cinderella#Article title and WP:CRYSTAL regarding a recent move of an article from Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical) to Bad Cinderella. A production using the former title ran until June 2022 and a new production with the latter title is planned for March 2023 (that is, in the future which conflicts with WP:CRYSTAL). Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Should show songs be considered songs for disambiguation purposes?

Looking at Bloody Mary (South Pacific). Shouldn't that be at (South Pacific character), given the song? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hair (musical) at peer review

You can comment on the new peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hair (musical)/archive2 -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

When to add an upcoming stage production to a table listing a person's stage credits.

There is a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers about when it is appropriate to add an upcoming stage production (e.g., play or musical) to a table in a "Stage performances" (or similarly named section) in a performer's biography. This could also apply to non-performing roles (e.g., director, choreographer, etc.) Interested editors active in this project are invited to participate in that discussion. — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion continues and now includes whether individual dates (past or future) and locations for national tours should be listed in a cast/crew member's credits (see the "Theatre" section of Jason Forbach for an example). — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of RfC re: Gene Kelly

See: Talk:Gene Kelly#RfC about description in opening of article and infobox. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO, this is fine, and we should not opt out. It would be better if there were just one quality assessment on each Talk page, instead of potentially inconsistent quality assessments from one project banner to another. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal re: Infobox Musicals: List of productions

I suggest that we modify the infobox template, and the infoboxes, throughout the project, to include only the premiere production, unless the first production is a pre-Broadway or pre-West End tryout, and in that case include only the B'way/WE premiere production. The long list in some musicals' infoboxes is not only redundant with the productions section, but it sometimes takes up a lot of space, and it really is not that important to list the 9 US and 6 UK national tours, etc. I have come, over the years, to the conclusion that it was a mistake to include it in the infoboxes in the current form. If we get a consensus in favor this, let's form a working group to make it happen throughout all the musicals articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Input request

I would appreciate input at the discussion at Talk:How Newtown Prepared#Plot. This is a difficult one to parse out source wise, and needs careful consideration. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Another input request

Comments appreciated at Talk:List of plays adapted into feature films#Need for article split.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Laird Mackintosh

I noticed that the article for Laird Mackintosh, who played the title role for the last performance of The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, needs some improvement. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Input request

Members may wish to comment here as some musical theatre actors have been the recipient of this award. The outcome could also impact other categories on awards in the arts by setting a precedent. All opinions welcome. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 1#Category:Kennedy Center honorees.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category discussion

Just discovered this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#Category:Musical television specials. Project members may wish to comment.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Input request on article title

Please comment at Talk:Burlesque Opera of Tabasco#Article title.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Great new source (at least new to me)

Hi all. I just discovered a treasure trove of material at the Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals (1760–1966); a website dedicated to making historic music journals available to the public. These are particularly useful for this project for reviews of early musicals and operettas. If you have interests in classical music, opera, etc. it is an even better resource for those content areas. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Tony Award for Best Musical

Tony Award for Best Musical - This page has become unreadable with listing all the producers, especially more recent entries which have long lists of producers. Any thoughts on removing this? It is all linked in on the official Tony Website. Mark E (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Mark E The benefit of having lists on wikipedia is having lists with wiki-links which allow you to go to encyclopedia entries on people, places, things, etc within those lists. An external list doesn't interlink with wikipedia's content so I would not support the removal of this list. Further, our project doesn't have the authority to make this kind of decision unilaterally. Removing/deleting content falls under the purview of WP:AFD. The list is a bit bulky with the producers listed towards the bottom, but that is not a valid reason to remove the list which clearly passes WP:LISTN and would easily survive an AFD. Perhaps some sort of reformatting would help organize the content more easily and solve the complaint about bulky reading? Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm in no way suggesting the removal of the article. Merely, removing the producers and reverting back to Book/Music/Lyrics as seem in this earlier revision - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical&oldid=1159716664 Mark E (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I have no strong opinion either way. Technically, the producers are the nominees. They are the ones who receive the award. That said, the average reader isn't likely to be looking for the producers. We could simply limit the producer names to those with articles and make it clear in our list description that we are intentionally not including all producers, only those with wikipedia pages.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It is out of control. If you bring up a Talk page proposal at that article, mention it here, and we can all comment there and try to reach a consensus. 4meter's suggestion of only listing blue-linked producers and then citing the link to the Tony Awards page with the full list might be a good compromise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Even listing only blue linked producers would have meant for an extremely bloated list. I have reverted to previous format. I'm looking at this from the view of a general reader (ie, me) who will want to be able to easily access the information without having to scroll over sometimes 30+ producers per production. Mark E (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

So the edit war continues. Again, if you start a Talk page discussion, a consensus can be reached and enforced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion opened Talk:Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical#Listing_Producers Mark E (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Fatter table headings?

Someone is going through all the musicals articles and doing this. I think it is the wrong thing to do, because it makes these already overlong tables even longer. The previous format is more efficient. But I'm not going to fight this by myself. Can we get a consensus on this, and if others agree with me, we can put them all back together. Otherwise, I'll just grumble and accept it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Much prefer the previous format with the place then year. I’m all for simplicity and easily seeing the information needed. Mark E (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

List of Tony Award-nominated productions

I reviewed this article as part of WP:NPP a couple days ago and it's been sitting on my watchlist, but I thought it might be a good idea to get more eyes on it as y'all will be more familiar with the standards in this area than I am. Is it worth having a big list like this when we already have lists that include this information for the individual awards? I have no preference either way, it's just a very long article in its current form. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is a helpful list and will just add clutter to "See also" sections. It just duplicates info given more precisely in the year-by-year Tony Awards lists. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

John Murray Anderson's Almanac

This article is a mess. Can anyone give it a once over? I have already clashed enough with the creator of the article, so it should be someone else. Note the extensive uncited and tangential information in the captions of the (misplaced) images at the top of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On The Flip Side – Original Cast Album

Comments would be appreciated at this AFD. All opinions welcome. 4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Craig Gallivan

An editor at AfD is proposing the deletion of the article on Craig Gallivan. He appeared as a major character, Luke, in 56 episodes of the Sky 1 TV series Stella among other TV roles, and he has had major roles in long runs in two West End theatre productions: (1) Dewey, the central character in Andrew Lloyd Webber's School of Rock, which he played for more performances than any other actor, and (2) Olaf, a major supporting character, in the original West End cast of the Disney musical Frozen (which he is still playing). The article does need to cite more sources. If anyone has an opinion about this either way, please join the deletion discussion here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Gallivan. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Dwayne Cooper

I've started an entry for American actor Dwayne Cooper. I'm familiar with Milan from Drag Race, and less familiar with Wikipedia biographies of stage actors, if any project members are interested in making improvements. Potentially interested in a GA co-nom if anyone's looking for a collab. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas! The Musical

The referential language in this article is very confusing:

First, the article mentions a 1994 production in Minneapolis, "Dr. Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Was this a musical? Who wrote the book, the lyrics, the music? Was it Timothy Mason, who was associated with the CTC during the 1960s and later? I know that their 2023 production was a musical.

Next, it discusses "the musical" in San Diego, with different creators.

Then, it describes a Broadway version, by Timothy Mason and others. (It also has a second sentence without a verb.)

There seem to be two or three different musicals here, and the language shoud make that clear, and not just repeatedly refer to "the musical".

And which version is described in the "Musical numbers" section, not to mention the thumbnail(?) information at the top right of the article? It's all very confusing. Pbergerd (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As you posted identical content at Talk:Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas! The Musical, I feel the discussion would be best played out there. DonIago (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria?

How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria? has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster (chat!) 06:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

First Lesbian Protagonist?

Can anyone comment here, please? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Fun_Home_(musical)#Error_re:_first_Broadway_musical_to_feature_a_lesbian_protagonist -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Some issues in List of musicals: A to L

Hi all. I am taking on the task of referencing this list and as I do so I am coming up against several issues. The most problematic issue is the venue/type section where I have caught both inconsistencies and errors. Most of the errors stem from shows where the Broadway production was not the original stage production and sometimes happened a year or two after the stage musical premiered in a city other than New York. In such cases the show is mislabeled as dating from a later date than what happened in reality or the Broadway show is listed as occurring in an earlier year than when it actually reached the New York stage. There are other issues involving the identification of a medium of the work, and occassionally the duplication of works that got revised and staged under a new name but are essentially the same musical.

All of this to say, I'd like to propose some alterations to the list structure to prevent errors. I would like to retitle the venue/type to medium where the choices would be: stage, television, or film musical. There might be the further choice of "album" or "concept album" if it was a musical that never made it past a recorded work which has happened a few times, or in the case of a show like Evita where the premiere was really a studio recording of the work rather than a staged production. I would then like to add the column: premiere where the date and place of the original stage productions can be given, or the date of a television or film's release can be placed. We could then do one of two things. The first option would be to create a "Major productions" column to cover Broadway, West End, productions after a premiere, or we could simply relegate all of that to the existing "notes" section.

I think these changes would make for a more informative and accurate list. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer. But if the show had a short-running tryout, or series of short-running tryouts prior to a successful Broadway or WE run, then I think the premiere production is the Broadway or WE production, and the tryout is essentially a footnote. Note that "premiere" is a nearly meaningless term, as media use it indiscriminately to refer to even revivals in new places. If, on the other hand, the show had a major, or long-running off-Broadway, regional or off-WE production, like Hair or Little Shop of Horrors, then that production was the premiere. If the show had a major concept album, like Evita but then went on to a successful stage production, then the concept album was not the premiere of the musical, but a separate adaptation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think the first performance should be catalogued for all works; because that is how works should be dated. If a show premiered in June 1903 but didn't reach Broadway until March 1904 then it is a 1903 musical and not a 1904 one. It's not unusual for musicals to have premiered in a city like Chicago long before they reached Broadway, or for shows to tour before they reach New York (particularly shows pre-1940). I can't tell you how many Broadway shows I've come across in theatre reference works which date shows to their Broadway production; only to find that they premiered a year or two years earlier in another city and toured widely before they reached the New York stage; some of them having longer runs in the Windy City and on tour then the New York production. Likewise, many shows in the late 19th and early 20th century had stops on Broadway on tours; a fact that often gets overlooked when cataloguing shows with short runs. Writers on these works fail to recognize the "road musical" that came into New York not for a lengthy stay but as part of a national tour; which is why they only played Broadway for one or two weeks. A good example of this would be The Floor Walkers (1899) which is erroneously dated to the brief Broadway stop in 1900 in most sources. There are many musicals of this type. I get that tryouts often involve making major revisions to shows, but I don't think we should ignore the first performance of a work for the purposes of dating that stage work to an accurate year. Cataloging the first performance is a much more accurate, objective, and encyclopedic approach to dating stage works. It's also what we do at WP:WikiProject Opera.4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Musicals and plays should NOT be dated!! I strongly object to calling a show a 1903 musical. It may be *written* in 1900, *published* in 1901, have a reading or workshop in 1902, have a one-night performance for a special event later in 1902, a one week tryout in a small theatre in 1903 and a West End production beginning in 1904. Musicals should be identifed by composer/lyricist/book writer, not by year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers The article already dates all of the works with a year in parenthesis; often incorrectly as explained above. I want to remove that parenthesis and replace it with a premiere performance column and better details on the major productions. I don't see how listing the performance premiere in a column designated to listing the first performance is doing something that is hurting the list; nor is it slapping an over-simplified label in the manner in which you just claimed above. All it's doing is giving the first date a work was performed and the name of the city and theatre where it happened. That is improving our understanding of the work in context, and it more accurately represents when a work began its performance history. We could also include a publication date column to provide details on published scores/libretti, and provide any other details in the notes section such as to say when it was created. There's a lot of ways to approach this; none of which simplify the presentation of the works into a single dated parenthesis which is the current practice that I am objecting to. I personally would prefer if we also listed the Broadway and West End premiere dates as well with the names of the theaters.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I would state in the Notes column \when/wnere the first major-market production opened, if any, and the original production should be defined as a fully-staged professional production of the full work before a paying public, not a workshop, concept album, theatre festival performance or backers' performance (those things could be described in the article itself, but they are not original productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Red Moon (Johnson and Cole)#Stage work; Musical v.s. Operetta

Hi all. I would appreciate some input at this discussion. FloridaArmy was wanting to describe the work as a musical comedy, but I am advocating for the more generic term "stage work" based on discrepancies among published literature. Per WP:NPOV, I have now documented a neutral presentation of the discrepancy in the article itself in The Red Moon (Johnson and Cole)#Operetta or musical?. I tried to be as balanced and neutral on this issue as possible and provide an overview across a wide range of sources. All opinions are welcome. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A confusion of Monte Cristos

Hi all. I just knocked off a stub on the Sigmund Romberg, Jean Schwartz, and Harold Atteridge musical Monte Cristo, Jr.. That page had previously been a redirect to the Victorian burlesque Monte Cristo Jr.. All that separates them in terms of name is a comma in the title. The chance for confusion here is pretty high. We probably need to check the in-coming links at both pages to make sure they are going to the correct stage work. Additionally, is this enough disambiguation between the two pages? Thoughts Jack1956 and Ssilvers?4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the hatnote covers it. I also added something here: Monte Cristo#Film, television and theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songwriters on Parade

I would appreciate some input here. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Casting Table Formatting

Hello. I have done some formatting to casting tables on numerous musical pages for both Broadway and West End. The way I reformatted it was to add an extra row for the year it premiered. The reasoning behind this was becuase there could be another production that opens in the same year as the previous and those cells could be merged. I also cleaned up the titles on the headings (ex. change "2021 Broadway to just Broadway and place the year below it, or change "Broadway revival" to "First Broadway Revival") Some examples of the work I have done include Hair and Back to The Future. Is this style of formatting ok? I was just trying to make the tables neater and organized. I personally do not see an issue here but if other people do not agree with this style, I will undo the edits. I do apologize for not coming here beforehand. Smitty1999 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I oppose these changes. They make the already bloated casting tables bigger and longer. Why have 2 rows for a 2021 Broadway production instead of just one? There are not going to be two Broadway productions of a musical in the same year. And why do we need to number the revivals in the headings? Who cares if it's the 6th West End revival or the 7th? If we just say Broadway revival (2020), that is crystal clear. I would appreciate if others would weigh in here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I can compromise on the "number" titles for revivals, but I still think the extra row for the year the production premiered is still necessary. Let's say a production opens in the West End or Broadway and then a subsequent production, say a tour or transfer happen in the same year, then the cells the year is on can be merged so that they are not repetitive. Look at Sweeney Todd for example, the West End Production and the First US National Tour opened in the same year. If we remove the number titles, the table headings might not look as bloated. Smitty1999 (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Cast and awards tables: Persistent accessibility issues

I was encouraged to post here by another editor. Please note that per MOS:DTAB, all data tables must have MOS:TABLECAPTIONS and semantic roles for columns and rows. These are required accessibility features or (among others) the blind to use our site. Please include them in all tables and definitely never remove them when you encounter them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more strongly. Adding this redundant extra heading to these already bloated cast tables would not help visually impaired people in the least, because the section heading already alerts them to what is following and acts as this "caption". So they are not "required". If we want to improve the cast tables, I would suggest converting them all to the more concise style used in Carousel, which focuses on notable actors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with what? That the blind don't need accessibility? MOS:DTAB is very clear:

Data tables should always include a caption.

What disagreement is there to be had in principle? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows what, exactly, is being discussed, here is a diff where Koavf added a "caption" that he is advocating, in the musical Illinoise. He is suggesting that similar additional captions (besides the headings *and* table headings that are already there) must also be added to ALL the cast tables that exist in all musical and play articles. It is the second line here, "Overview of casts for Illinoise", but the caption is nonsense/redundant, as the table is NOT an overview, and obviously it's for Illinoise, as that is the subject of the article:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Illinoise&diff=prev&oldid=1220439925

-- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Ssilvers that the extra row with years is unhelpful clutter. Tim riley talk 17:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is helpful to the blind and in no sense clutter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is required for all tables as per above. You also seem to not know that the table captions while the must be included do not necessarily have to be rendered. See {{sronly}}. Again:

Data tables should always include a caption

This is not optional. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf until you can get consensus from other experts, we will not be implementing this. You are not the ultimate authority here. Experts who have engaged in this discussion have made it clear that this additional caption will clutter to the already bloated tables and will be unhelpful. Smitty1999 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus: it's in the MoS. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Please show me an "expert" on accessibility in this conversation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that Smitty means "experienced editors". I agree that no Wikipedian is an "expert" with respect to content discussion, including Koavf. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And how did you discover that I am not an expert on accessibility? Is the past 20 years I have spent here not enough to be "experienced"? Is being an invited expert on the HTML5 Working Group not enough to be familiar with Web best practices? Please see that MOS:DTAB explicitly states that it is a consensus-built document, it explicitly states that all data tables need captions, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicitly states that local groups of editors cannot "override" broader community consensus. Please tell me what I'm missing here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: please see the above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see that there is no consensus (in fact not a single person agreeing with you) to add the misinformation to the tables that you wish to add throughout Wikipedia's musical theatre entries that have cast tables. They are not "overviews", and they display only certain casts, as already captioned in the table headings. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What “misinformation”? See that the MOS is a product of consensus and local consensus cannot override it. Again, what am I missing? If the problem is the content of the table captions, then make better ones, not delete them. All data tables are required to have captions, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Damian Hubbard from Mean Girls

I've created Damian Hubbard about the fictional character from the film Mean Girls (2004) and subsequent adaptations, including the musical and 2024 film. Hoping some project members might be able to expand the article further re: the musical production. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft article: Can someone please review?: Draft:Masi Asare

Hi. I am copying this request here from the COTM talk page, which doesn't get much traffic. I hope someone can help this editor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrote a new article for a Harvard-educated, Tony-nominated musical theater writer Draft:Masi Asare. She's the only writer of Paradise Square who doesn't have a page yet, and she's done a lot and has been covered fairly widely. I'm hoping this is a slam dunk that's not hard to get approved. So, if anyone has permissions to move articles to the mainspace, please let me know if there's anything I can do to get this article going. Thank you Wikipedian339 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cast tables issues more generally

See this edit, where someone else questioned the typical cast tables that are in many musical theatre articles. As I suggested above, it would be better to convert them all to the more concise style used in Carousel and The King and I, which focuses on notable actors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How is that relevant? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)You made a tangential subheading as I posted my comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I can agree with this partially. Classic shows like Carousel or The King and I have had numerous revivals. However, newer shows like The Outsiders or Illinoise don't have as many productions on their cast tables, so that is not necessary for the newer shows but definitely for the classics. Smitty1999 (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, some shows, like revues or unsuccessful regional shows, are unlikely to have numerous major productions, but both The Outsiders and Illinoise have just been nominated for multiple Tony Awards and very well could become ubiquitously popular, and so columns in the cast table are likely to get out of control, like at Moulin Rouge! (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers We can implement that if/when tables get too bloated. For Moulin Rouge, I do agree that since so many productions of it have opened in the last few years, then we should condense the tables but not necessarily for new shows. Once they have more than a few different notable productions, then we can condense the tables to what they look like on Carousel or King and I. Cabaret is another one that needs a condensing as it has too many productions. Smitty1999 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That is a workable compromise, though it makes more work when we have to, basically, do the table twice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I can help if you need it. It's the little things we have to do to make them better. Smitty1999 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have time, please go ahead on those two articles, and any others like them that you see from time to time, and I'll be happy to review if you ping me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly! Smitty1999 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers I made the adjustment to the table on Moulin Rouge! Can you review to see how it looks? Smitty1999 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Please look at my minor edits and edit summaries. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. I will start working on the Cabaret table now. Smitty1999 (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the concise tables are better and more user friendly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May I just ask how to make a cast table for Frankenstein 2014 musical? There have been 8 productions so far, each with multiple actors in the main roles. EncreViolette (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Musical Theatre in Japan and Korea (and elsewhere)

Hello, and nice to meet everyone.

I am a fan of theatre -- musical and otherwise -- and I live in Tokyo. I've noticed a shocking lack of information about modern theatre in Japan and Korea on English Wikipedia and on English sites in general. I've been trying to translate as much as I can and share information, particularly regarding shows that I'm a fan of, but I'm willing to help spread the word and translate about anything from Japanese (I don't know Korean or other languages).

There are hundreds of musicals that have premiered in Korea and Japan over the past few decades that are mostly unknown to English audiences.

I haven't created any pages yet. Would it be okay to create draft pages about musicals? Major ones, like Frankenstein, Fan Letter, Isabeau, Smoke...

The pages for Theater of Japan and Theater of Korea need major rewrites. Nothing modern is even suggested there. Very few major actors and almost no composers have pages.

To translate a page of an actor or a production from the Japanese Wikipedia site, what needs to happen, if there isn't a page at all in English yet?

I'm sorry for the newbie questions. I just want to know if there's anyone interested in improving coverage of these topics.

Thank you. EncreViolette (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad to have you aboard. Yes, by all means, create draft pages for new articles that you are confident are WP:Notable, and an easy way to start is to translate entries from Japanese Wikipedia that we do not have here. The reason that English Wikipedia does not have a lot of coverage of musicals first created in Asia is simply a matter of not having a lot of people who have chosen to work on that in the past. BTW, There is already an article called Frankenstein – A New Musical. Is that the one you mean? English WP has several other musicals articles based on Frankenstein, so check that before you start one. Please try to keep your Talk page comments more compact, like mine. Before you do a major re-write on an existing article, I would suggest going to the Talk page of that article and starting a new discussion about what you are planning to do. Then wait a few days to see if anyone has any objections or suggestions about how to proceed. Feel free to ask me questions on my Talk page about editing content. I am always happy to copy edit and explain content rules like WP:RS, WP:DUE, etc. Others are probably better at technical stuff like how to work in Draft. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.

That is not the same Frankenstein musical. There have been at least 4 in the past 15 years. The article Frankenstein in Popular Culture has a note about the Korean one, but it has no article yet.

Regarding notability -- There is a news source called Stage Natalie. It covers stage plays from all producers, but I'm not close enough to the industry to know how independent it is from the producers. Should I make sure to find one more article besides that about any production to consider it notable?

Thank you.

EncreViolette (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A notable production will normally have some combination of a notable director, notable leading actors, notable writer, lyricist and/or composer, and run for a long period of months or years. It will normally be reviewed by the major news sources that review theatre. If a play or musical has productions on Broadway or in the West End it is usually notable, but if it plays only in Japan, say, it should have a lot of the indicia of notability that I mentioned above before it could be considered notable. Start with the most notable, starriest, longest-running, most reviewed productions first. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Plays don't run for a long time in Japan and Korea, that isn't the business model. Even the most notable productions have pre-defined limited runs, sometimes of under a month. Video recordings are also far more common in Japan.

This is what I'm asking. The notability guidelines basically say that if there are articles about a work or a person, not just the work's own promotional materials, then that is enough to make it notable. Stage Natalie is a main news source that covers theatre. It's not the only one, but it seems to me to be the biggest one. What does something need to be notable, other than having neutral articles about it?

Another question: When is it worth making a separate page about a musical that is an adaptation, as opposed to having a section in the page for the original work?

There is a Category:Japanese Musicals list that is horribly incomplete. About a year ago, I tried adding pages of the source material of certain musicals (such as Cesare (manga) (why doesn't that article have the series' full title as its title?)) and those got cut from the page because the main topic of the article isn't a musical. Your Lie in April has a page. Is it okay to make a page for musicals that are adaptations? It'd be hard to argue that the Cesare musical isn't notable.

EncreViolette (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: The notability guidelines basically say that if there are articles about a work or a person, not just the work's own promotional materials, then that is enough to make it notable." Well, the guidelines say that, at a minimum, you need multiple WP:Reliable sources that provide significant coverage, and they also say that notable topics have at least national coverage, if not international coverage. But even if you found a couple of sources, you should also consider whether this play/musical has been revived in significant productions. If a play only plays once, at a provincial theatre for a few weeks with a non-notable cast, why is it of encyclopedic interest? A really notable play will be reviewed by all, or at least most of, the major newspapers and news services that carry theatre reviews. You might want to put this on your watchlist for a few weeks: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Theatre to see what sorts of theatre articles get deleted for lack of notability, and which ones survive. Then, as I said, start working on the very most notable ones first. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're applying New York and London standards to a different place where the standards are different.

If an actor is already considered notable enough to have an English wikipedia page, is that enough to make the production notable?

Tokyo and Seoul are not provincial. EncreViolette (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, definitely not enough by itself. Again, look at the indicia I posted above. Would User:4meter4 or someone please comment on these questions? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I read through the list of which articles have been kept and which deleted. The productions I'm talking about are definitely notable enough. I'm not talking about one notable actor. I'm talking about a full cast who, if they had pages in English, those pages would be kept. Lots of search results, coverage about them. Lots of coverage of the productions as well. Official sites come up for the first few results, but there are news articles after that. How are the sources in this draft -> Draft:Frankenstein (2014 musical) Are those sources enough?

Thank you for your time.

EncreViolette (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

One should not be so shocked that things in the encyclopedia are not complete or not written about in English Wikipedia. Is the article you are shocked not to see in the Encyclopedia Brittanica? I doubt it. If not, it is not shocking at all. Further, this is a volunteer project. People work on what they know about or what they wish to research. Very often, subjects in predominantly non-English speaking countries are sparsely covered until someone, like you, with an interest in covering them, comes along. On the other hand, sometimes people come along who insist on writing about non-notable topics, and they are frustrated to see all of their efforts eventually deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question about adaptations, compare Back to the Future with Back to the Future (musical), a recent adaptation of the first. The musical has played on both the West End (for almost 3 years so far) and Broadway (1 year so far), with notable creators, director, designers and actors, and so it is independently notable. The opposite case can be seen at Sense and Sensibility, where a musical adaptation has not been deemed independently notable, even though it was internationally revived and had a notable director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am commenting because I was pinged. In terms of notability, WP:SIGCOV is our guide. If multiple independent sources with significant coverage exists then we can have an article on a given work. It’s as simple as that. A production does not necessarily have to have a long run, or a bunch of famous people in its cast to be deserving of an article. There are many failed shows for example that have received lots of in-depth coverage because they were significant flops for example, and likewise there have been critically acclaimed works that ran for a short period (particularly in opera which is expensive). The only thing that determines whether or not we can have an article on a stage work is the sourcing. If you have a minimum of three sources with in-depth coverage on a play/musical than it should pass an AFD. The main thing that I would look for is the type of sources. Works covered in books, journals, etc are likely notable. Works with only media coverage may or may not be notable. If the only independent sources are reviews then there needs to be some analysis of the quality of those reviews. If the reviews are all small local outlets it probably isn’t notable, but if it’s had wider regional and/or national coverage or been covered in a notable theatre magazine/journal than it probably is notable.4meter4 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note, however that that guideline specifically says, right near the top of that section: "...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 WP:NOT, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." That means that you need significant coverage, but also the thing itself needs to be of encyclopedic importance. That is why you also need other indicia of notability, such as having notable people involved, and/or a long run, and/or a major-market production, and/or multiple revivals, and/or an occurence of historical significance (a king is assassinated, the theatre burns down, or the roof caves in during the opening), and/or some other indicia of notability. In most cases, having several notable people involved helps. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. So, if if it was produced in a major theatre in Tokyo (and, usually, had a national tour), it's been written up by Stage Natalie, Musical magazine, and one or two others, and at least one person who already has a page is involved, does that mean I don't need to worry about whether or not it's notable?

EncreVioletteI think these would be likely to be notable. I would expect to see some criticism from mainstream Japanese media like newspapers in addition to those types of sources or even television news as well. The Japan Times has a stage section for example for theatre reviews. If it hasn't been reviewed in at least one of Tokyo's major newspapers it probably isn't notable. 4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying. Theater reviews aren't as much of a thing here as they are in New York and London. The same systems don't apply everywhere. EncreViolette (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@EncreViolette I just pointed you to The Japan Times which has an entire section of its website dedicated to theatre reviews in Tokyo. Hiroshi Hasebe is one example of a notable critic that writes for Japanese language papers. There may not be the volume of criticism that happens in the west, but there certainly are working theatre critics in Japan. I notice that many of the Stage Natalie entries lack an attributed author, which means their content may be non-independent and more akin to a press release. That is an issue. Without press coverage with a bylined author it’s going to be difficult to assert that sources are sufficiently independent to justify an article. I would suggest concentrating on creating articles on stage works that have been reviewed by a named author in a minimum of three different publications (magazines, newspapers, etc), otherwise they are not likely to survive an AFD unless there is some sort of other high quality source like an academic journal article or book from an academic publisher. This may not be what you want to hear, but it is what WP:GNG requires (ie three independent sources) for all articles regardless of context/topic area. That is the governing guideline for all articles.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

One more question: Adding proshot information to musicals that already have pages. Is that alright? Should I format it the way the casts are formatted on the Frankenstein page? I know there was a discussion that not all casts are notable enough to be listed on the page. Are proshot casts notable enough? EncreViolette (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Another question. I see that the page for Hakataza says that it's a stub and needs more information. Would listing proshot recordings filmed there be appropriate? I know the 2023 Elisabeth was filmed there. It probably wouldn't be hard to look up more. It's the last stop of a lot of national tours (and about half of the major Tokyo productions tour). EncreViolette (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

One more question... I've always been frustrated that the page for Mozart! has so little information. Is it accurate to think that that's what's called a "stub" and that drafts need a lot more than that? (I would have added to that page a long time ago, except I'm not really a fan of that musical and I don't think my knowledge is accurate.) EncreViolette (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Boop! The Musical

Someone has added a synopsis to this article about a Broadway-bound musical. Does anyone have time to edit it and fix the styles (for example, song titles go in quotes, not italics, and the punctuation goes after the song title, not before. I am travelling, so I don't have time. Help, please! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)