Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

WikiProject Musical Theatre

Main Talk Page

If you have come from other parts of Wikipedia, please see our other subpages:

as your question may be answered or may currently be in discussion there. Thanks!

Ira Weitzman

For me there is no doubt that Weitzman is a notable creative professional, but I am unsure how best to proceed with further developing this article. Help would be appreciated. —Alalch E. 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See if any of the people listed in Category:Dramaturges have an FA article, or if not, a GA article, and look at that for ideas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Wicked (musical)

Wicked (musical) 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too thin?

I don't know much about sourcing for musical theatre, any chance someone could take a look at the draft at User:Valereee/Rutka (musical) and confirm for me what I suspect: that the sourcing is too thin to move to mainspace at this point.

Thanks for any help! I'm actually seeing it next weekend, so I can get photos of the set, and I thought I'd go ahead and start a draft, but I'm not really sure at what point a musical becomes notable. :D Valereee (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's sourced enough and has enough coverage to move to mainspace. Mark E (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is OK (notes 3 and 4 should be replaced by independent sources), but I am not sure that the musical is notable yet. If it never received another production, then it would always be a musical with no notable cast that ran for less than one month at a regional theatre. On the other hand, if it gets a bunch of reviews in national publications, then I'd say it probably tips over into the notable range. I'd wait until October 18th to see what reviews it gets. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both! I'll keep it in draft for now, see what happens. Hoping it will get something national per the NYT's recommendation list, and the Enquirer is describing it as being incubated for eventually heading to Broadway. Always fun when that happens and you can say you saw it first. :) Valereee (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantasticks

The Fantasticks is missing a reception section. Can anyone add a discussion of the 1960 reviews and later reviews? It seems that the show was not well received initially, but later earned critical acclaim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Gundunas

Given that the few news items on this person in google news were musical theatre related, I'd appreciate project members taking a look at this. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Show Boat

Show Boat 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Repertory Theatre and Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

There is a discussion ongoing at the Pacific Repertory Theatre Talk page regarding possibly deleting the article on this U.S. regional theatre.

In addition, recent edits to the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California article have deleted a lot of information, including the mentions of Pacific Repertory Theatre and The Carmel Bach Festival, both of which are based there. I put these two mentions back in (and a link to Forest Theater). The editor who has been making the deletions reverted my edit with this edit deleting this information again.

If you have an opinion either way on either article, feel free to contribute to the discussion on the Talk pages there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been an apparent, long term, promotional public relations editing by someone that appears to have a strong COI with the Pacific Repertory Theatre. Special:Diff/279294153

Further discussion is in progress at: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Smatprt_(undisclosed_paid_editing,_long_term_PR_editing)

Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the editor has a COI or other problem, and of course any useful edits are welcome, but let's not discard encyclopedic information in a vendetta against a particular editor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contents are highly problematic as well as they've used primary sources, self published sources, and dependent secondary sources liberally which does not comport to the expectations that articles need to be fleshed out predominantly from independent secondary sources.

It's generally inappropriate to cite the event or the organizer's own publication to shoehorn the event into other articles. It will be wildly inappropriate to even mention something like Seattle Unicycle Riding Squad into Seattle using the hypothetical squad's own website, or various riding clubs' websites around the world. World Naked Bike Ride mention in Portland, Oregon is a different situation, because there is significant coverage, not a passing mention as it relates to Portland in mainstream corporate media.

If Carmel Bach Festival is to be mentioned in Carmel-by-the-Sea article, the source shouldn't be the festival's website. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF says: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
It does not involve claims about third parties;
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
The article is not based primarily on such sources. Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shoehorning an organization into the city article using the org's own website IS unduly self serving, because it's a prominence increasing attempt. Graywalls (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show Boat

The article on Show Boat was de-listed from GA and reassessed by User:AirshipJungleman29 as C-class. There is a lot of good information in the article, but (i) it needs more citations, as there is some uncited text; (ii) citations to IMDB and Amazon should be replaced by citations to WP:RSs; and (iii) some of the block quotes in the Analysis section should be summarized in prose. That would quickly bring the article up to B-class. Can anyone help? I could do (iii). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers I've started helping. I just discovered that the background section is practically a copy paste of the entry on Show Boat in Operetta: A Sourcebook, Volume II by Robert Ignatius Letellier who isn't even in the references list. Whoever added that clearly did so in copyright violation of that work. I'll try and re-write that section after doing some reading. Coincidentally I watched the old movie version of Show Boat last night for the first time.4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I'm also finding a number of examples where the cited source only partially verifies the content, or not at all. I'm not sure who worked on this one in the past, but all of the sourcing needs to be double checked for verifiability and copyright issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was greatly expanded from 2005 to 2009 by several major contributors, when referencing standards were not as rigorous as they are now. Glad you're working on it, since it's so important to musical theatre history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerdy Prudes Must Die

Project members may wish to comment. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Friday (musical) is also open for comment. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals

I've been looking into the notability for musicals produced by StarKid Productions and wish to double check one aspect of the article The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals. I still need to search for reviews, but what is the standard for notability with musical theater productions? The musical received awards from a site, but I am unsure of the site's reliability and general importance within this WikiProject, and whether these awards mean anything at all toward the subject's notability. I wished to double check before moving ahead with doing a deep dive of reviews so I can have a better-informed assessment of this subject's notability. Any help with this is greatly appreciated. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A musical's notability should be judged based on a combination (balancing) of these factors:

1. Does it have notable writers, composer, director, cast?
2. Did it run a long time (more than a year?) at a major venue?
3. Did it get reviews and feature articles in national or international media, like The New York Times, The Guardian, Variety?
4. Awards: Did it win any Tony Awards? Olivier Awards?
5. Anything else that makes the musical particularly interesting? For example, was it premiered on a network TV program in prime time? Did it have numerous revivals around the world? Has it had a lengthy (more than a year) US, UK or world tour to notable regional venues?

I looked at these StarKid productions and did not think their short-running, never-revived musicals, with no notable creatives, cast or crew were very notable. They do not seem to have attracted reviews in major media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers if reviews came from non-major media, but are still classified as reliable sources, would those be considered as applying to the GNG? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." Let's unpack this. Does the coverage discuss the musical in depth? Does it discuss the writing, themes, societal, dramatic or comic impact or artistic merit of the musical? Can you tell from the sources that the musical has significant thematic, societal, dramatic or comic impact or artistic merit? Even if so, if the musical was only produced once for a short run, or in a small venue, with few or no notable people involved, as in this case, I don't think it really satisfies WP:MILL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers so things like local news sources would be relatively unviable for illustrating notability, is what I'm gathering? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should be looking at run time at venue for notability when YouTube release has been a large part of the "run". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, I don't think posting something to social media is very significant, unless it got hundreds of millions of views, like The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]