Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive6-30-06

Categorization

I have a few questions about categorization policies that this wikiproject might bring about. The scope of the project is Broadway Theatre, which could apply to various things: Broadway, Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway theatres themselves or the shows that appear at those theatres.

For the shows themselves, would they receive a new categorization for each place it played? For example, Rent and Hair both appeared at Off-Broadway theatres before coming to Broadway. Would they therefore be categorized under both Category:Broadway musicals and Category:Off Broadway? --BaronLarf June 29, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Problems with the WikiProject

I'm leaving this WikiProject for a few reasons:

1. I think the articles concerned would be better served by projects on each individual art form (musicals, plays, etc) since most works don't appear solely on Broadway
2. The project appears to be inactive; I left a message here (above) three weeks ago, with no response.

Cheers. --BaronLarf 12:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go. I hadn't seen that particular message, I'm sorry I hadn't replied to it. I do hope the project will gain membership, and perhaps later on you will reconder joining. EvilPhoenix talk 16:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Additional Information

Should we consider adding plot summaries and song lists to the articles as well as the other information we are already adding?

heck_ja_for_ska

Broadway and Wicked icon

I'm a bit peeved by the icon for this project: a Wicked logo. Does Wicked represent Broadway? Sure, it's the current hit musical, but I can guarantee you there'll be a new hit musical five years from now that'll be just as successful as Wicked. There are numerous great musicals that have appeared on Broadway throughout its history, and I don't think its at all fair to label them all with the symbol of the current hit. This is like giving every rock and roll article a Green Day icon--certainly they're a popular band, but however popular they are now, there were big rock bands before them and there will be big rock bands after them.

Really. Wicked isn't even on the list of notable musical theatre productions. I don't see why it should be representing Broadway.

• Actually, according to Wikipedia:Fair use it is copyright infringement to use the Wicked logo. — "The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement." — WARPEDmirror 19:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I picked it cause in my impression it was the top show on Broadway currently, and my idea was that the image could change around to whatever the top show was at a given time. Or it could just rotate around, as long as the template is transcluded, which it was on all the articles I tagged it with, updating the template will update the image. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be taken off the template. --Gbleem 01:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

I don't know if you have show requests, but the Sweeney Todd site should be updated as it is now on broadway. I'd do it but I don't have the time. I would however like the info to be up at some point.

Update

I was browsing the project page and found that many shows requiring the "Broadway Show" denotation have been amended. Here's shows that have NOT been checked off but are in fact updated:

• Movin' Out
• A Street Car Named Desire
• Beauty and the Best
• Cage aux Folles
• The Producers
• Fiddler on the Roof

Kstrubb 04:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Great. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Template--Widen the scope.

I don't think the template in its current form is a good representation of these shows. First off there is more to the theatre world than Broadway. I propose that the template should be non-geographic in nature in order to allow UK West End, German, French, Hungarian, Japanese, and other non-Broadway shows the ability to use it per Wikipedia Countering Systemic Bias. In order to help achieve this and also take into account the possibility of show revivals, the template should also be modular. (example) --Kunzite 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would really be more helpful to have something like a WikiProject Musicals, instead of focusing solely on Broadway productions. For comparsion, see WikiProject Films as well as WikiProject Novels. Estrose 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the two above comments. What would the procedure be for transforming this project into WikiProject Musicals? Until that is done, however, I'll be working on Broadway-related articles. MichaelCaricofe 04:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pressing the move button at the top of the page, which I did. --Kunzite 03:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A Brit living in New York, I was just passing through here, I notice that you have broadened the scope with the name change, but the project information (on the main project page) still focuses on New York. Scope, Parentage, Goals and Templates all need updating. In addition, I would also rewrite the lead sentence at the top of the page, there is also no need to mention New York explicitly - "around the world" should include NYC, surely? Cheers, Walkerma 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

question about stub wording

why does it say "musical theatre of film" ? that doesn't make any sense. J. Van Meter 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo. Sorry. Fixed. --Kunzite 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

oh. as in "Musical Theater OR Movie Musical". got it. consider using the term "movie musical". might be a bit clearer. J. Van Meter 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To Do list - or lack thereof

Doesn't look good for a project to have nothing to do - and trust me, there is work to be done! I'm sure there are hundreds of actors, directors, choreographers, plays, etc. that need to be added. The ones that do exist are often stubs. Crystallina 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, I would love to join this project because I love broadway and I would be proud of myself if I help out with this project. How can I get started? i'm not quite sure because the to-dos aren't that clear and all. Thank you!　broadway_dude 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Hello. I've created {{Infobox musicals}} for general musicals. The only info box I can see is specific to Broadway, with the 'Tony' fields non-optional. The page (which looks blank) needs tidying so it shows the template: it got its premiere at Dance of the Vampires. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and tidied up the page a little and added a few more fields, as well as changed the title of the template to {{Infobox Musical}} since the template covers an individual musical at a time, not several. Also, I propose using this template over {{Broadway-show}}. No harm in making all the musical pages uniform, right? We can even add an optional awards field, where we can put Tony information, as well as Drama Desk and other notable awards. – warpedmirror (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying it. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To Do list created

I went ahead and added one task - to create articles on Tony Award winners. Too many redlinks - this is, I fear, systemic bias in action. Doesn't have to be that way though. I've created a few. Crystallina 04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Broadway operas

I'm wondering about nominating this category for deletion. There is no article about Broadway operas. Perhaps the best way to handle these cross-over productions is to categorize them both as musicals and operas when appropriate. -- Samuel Wantman 09:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

With this, I completely agree. There is a HUGE amount of subjectvity regarding terming something an opera, and the term gets flung around by people who want to term a Meat Loaf album an "opera". —  MusicMaker 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this show on the road

I stopped by this WikiProject a couple of months ago and was dismayed to see that there was apparently nothing going on: I didn't bother signing up. It seems to me that, across the board, the Wikipedia coverage on musicals is SERIOUSLY lacking. Reading the talk page, I feel that there are some editors who have some good ideas and might also feel that the whole project is a little tenuous.
I think we need to kick this thing into high gear.
The main page for the project is basically non-existent. Since there doesn't seem to be anyone actively watching things, I think that if anyone has any ideas for what should be there, be bold.
I think we should decide on a basic structure for the articles for individual shows: we really need some consistency. I've recently written or re-written How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and The Baker's Wife — both of which, I feel, have a logical structure. I think we should lean away from long lists of actors — instead trying to incorporate the major names into the text — but we should have some way of integrating several incarnations of the same show: revivals and movies and productions in other countries included. Articles for people should obviously follow the guidlines for biographies.
I started to work up a new template a couple of months ago, but it got out of hand and I haven't touched it. (You can see it here. Much thanks to whomever created the new one.) However, the template doesn't allow for revivals, London productions, etc. It's not going to be easy to create a small template that can cover everything, but I think we should shy away from several templates on one page. The current longest-running Broadway show, Phantom of the Opera, has no infobox. I've been loathe to add one since it was a British show and, while I don't want to offend the Brits, my own tendency would be to fill the box with the info on the NY production as it was the one to hit the milestone. We need to have some way to handle this, and I am certainly open to ideas.
This to-do list is a little, um, vague. It's just kind of, you know, the basic ideas behind Wikipedia. There are still some non-musicals with the {{Broadway-project}} tag on them, and I think that we need to get the tag on more applicable pages. I don't think that every actor in every production of every show deserves an article (as some of the red links on some of the articles might suggest), but I think we need to eliminate some of those red links lying around — either by writing articles or dewiking them.
Some of the project pages have an Article Assessment page; I'll probably be setting one up here. Why don't we hunt out articles that are seriously lacking and get some sort of a real objective going? Active members can each sign up for an article, then, when it's "done", cross it off the list. I think I'm going to go through my CDs and search for each show, as well as go through the inventory of MTI, but I'm not sure where else to find worthy shows. I don't want anyone to be offended with what I end up putting up there: the list will obviously have a bias toward shows that I personally enjoy — mainly American shows from the 80s and 90s. Add whatever you feel is necessary.
I think that the current thrust of the project has taken on more of a global view than our parent WikiProject New York Theatre, and I'd like to explore the possibility of moving it under the umbrella of WikiProject Theatre. I think it's just a matter of switching around some links, but I have a message on the talk of WikiProject Theatre to make sure that's okay with them.
I'm probably going to go through and leave messages on everyone's talk page to come here and check out these ideas, because, like I said, I don't think anyone's paying any real attention to this page.
This is extremely long and, for that, I apologize.
Individually, there has been a lot of good work. There are several editors out there doing some good stuff, but I think we need some cohesion. I think that, with everyone's cooperation and ideas, we can really get this project headed in the right direction.
—  MusicMaker 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurray!!! I am so ready for this project to start being productive! I, too, started to make an infobox that would cover every notable production of a musical. Bad idea. It just got way way way too long. Then I saw that someone had already created a new infobox and I added a few things from mine too it, along with the "venue" section. Now, most of the pages use "Original Broadway production" for this category. My idea is that the infobox should cover (for English musicals) either the original Broadway or original West End production - whichever it opened on first. This would mean using West End information for Phantom. I know that the Broadway info is more notable, but we probably shouldn't make exceptions, because then things could start going crazy.

This, however, may cause a problem or two. IBDB.com is a great source for information on all Broadway productions, but I have no clue where to get info on West End or touring productions. Does anyone have a clue?

I also see that "Major Revivals" was added as a section. What do you say we change this to "Other notable productions" and (in H2S's case) "1963 original West End production, 1995 Broadway revival." Of course, notable information on these other productions would be included in prose. I won't go ahead and change it until I get some feedback. – warpedmirror (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make the template more generic. Instead of using the information for one production or another, we can make it more generalized: composer, lyricist, librettist, major awards (Tony Music, Lyrics and Best Musical -- no acting or directing awards -- Drama Desk the same and Pulitzer Prize), etc. However, there should be a date in the infobox SOMEWHERE, which would probably be best served by an Opening Night. Opening Night, of course, would be germane to one production. (Sorry, I'm talking in circles.)

I'm going to leave the one we currently have, but play around with the one on my user page for a little bit. Anyone else can feel free to tinker with it, as well.

—  MusicMaker 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am ready to get this project in gear. One thing I know we must do is to STAY AWAY from long lists of actors, musical numbers, etc. A goal is to get an article featured and this kills nominations every time - see the article on Rent for an example. (I forget whether the musical or the movie was turned down.)

The to-do list, also, only existed 3 months ago when I basically forced it in. I still think that winning a Tony automatically makes one notable and thus deserving of an article. Crystallina 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...long lists are definitely a no-no. The guys at WP:FA and even WP:GA pretty much want everything in prose. – warpedmirror (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not having seen the Rent nom, I would assume that my opinion may be misinformed. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a list of Musical Numbers. ONE list. I know that the musical lineup can change from production to production and I think it's WHOLLY unwise to list them all. Articles for albums almost always have a track listing, and I think it's kind of the same idea. When I get a chance, though, I'll review the Rent nom -- maybe it'll change my mind!

If it is determined that we must stay away from lists, then we need to be sure to accurately incorporate the musical numbers in the plot or synopsis. It's not difficult; I recently read one article that said something along the lines of "Joe sang a love song to Betty." (It wasn't Sunset Boulevard -- I don't know why I picked those names!) Why wasn't it written as "Joe sang I Will Always Love You to Betty"? Personally, I prefer, "Joe told Betty I Will Always Love You." -- make it part of the sentence.

And please don't think I was attacking you personally for the to-do list. I agree that a Tony win makes one notable, I just think that there are a MULTITUDE of things to be done that could be up there. After I'm done with the talk page, that's probably my next step: to expand on what's in there.

—  MusicMaker 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Musical numbers were specifically brought up here. The to-do list was meant as a start; the Tonys seemed like the most glaring omissions. You don't see that many redlinks on pages for the Academy Awards, for instance. Crystallina 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking Rent's musical numbers list might be a problem since everything is listed. All the Tune Ups are not exactly "songs" and make the list look miles long. On the Record failed a Good Article nomination because of the huge list of musical numbers. The songs are extremely important to musicals and should be included, I think...but BAH I just don't know lol. – warpedmirror (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I think the list of musical numbers on both of those articles referenced are quite large. Rent could probably have done without the Tune Ups and Voice Mails and whatnot. There's nothing in What is a featured article? that specifically states that there should be no list, and the list in those two shows would differ greatly from the list that would be in something like City of Angels. Furthermore, I would venture to say that Rent was not given an FA more because of the lack of references and objectivity than for any specific facet of the article.

I just found List of musicals, something I didn't know existed. Probably a good springboard for us.

—  MusicMaker 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The List of musicals is a wonderful article but it too nees some polishing. If you look in some of the pages that I have added (or will soon) to this project in the To Do section, you will find a sorted version of that page as it relates to infoboxes and existent/non-existent musicals. These lists also contain some musicals not listed on that page. I think if this projects main goal becomes adding everything to the List of musicals page and updating everything we add, the project will be a success.

omtay38 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Our main questions have been delineated here. I suggest we move the discussion there, and should anyone have any others, feel free to add them to the page. —  MusicMaker 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)