Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive10-19-07

• 6
• Archive 7
• 8
• 10
• 12

Help

I could use some help over at Thrill Me. One editor insists on adding a paragraph that is a copyvio (from where I don't remember) and adding an EXTRAORDINARY amount of external links. If everyone could keep their eyes on it and note Thrillmecd's edits, I would appreciate it. —  MusicMaker5376 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I went through the article and cleaned it up a bit, as well as deleting some non-notable stuff. A lot of the article was written like the musical's promotional info. Many of the links should be references to text in the article. I left suggestions on the talk page. There is enough information out there to write a really good article. -- Ssilvers 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the user's name, I think its not unreasonable to assume that he's somehow involved with the production. —  MusicMaker5376 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's reverted Thrill Me back to where we started, after several of us put a lot of work into it. -- Ssilvers 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've weighed in as I thought his reversion was rather thoughtless and certainly not to the benefit of the article. Hope that's okay! Docta247 17:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Much appreciated. —  MusicMaker5376 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He's still going, and I'll need some help to keep the article sane but avoid a 3RR violation. Docta247 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've used my three reverts and he's still going so I'll need some help if we're still trying to keep this article up to standard. Docta247 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I got one in. If he reverts again, I'll report him at 3RR. —  MusicMaker5376 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The image on the article couldn't possibly be licensed correctly. The editor in question uploaded it, saying that he owns the copyright, and released it in GFDL. He couldn't possibly own the copyright to the whole thing, unless he's both the producer of the show and Playbill magazine. I don't want to mark it for deletion, but I'm sure the editor won't be open to discourse on the subject. Any suggestions? —  MusicMaker5376 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is a disaster and reads like the vanity piece it is. Does it remain as is or can something be done to stop Thrillmecd from ignoring Wikipedia policies and formats? ConoscoTutto 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the article's talk page [1] about the notability of the numerous productions listed in the text of the article. If you have time, please read it and feel free to express your opinion. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the editor's talk page regarding the copyvio. He is claiming to be Stephen Doligdoff (or whatever his name is), the creator of the show. I don't doubt his claims, and sent him to look at several policies and guidelines, including WP:COPY and WP:OWN. We'll see if this helps. —  MusicMaker5376 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

After several reverts, I reported the editor at 3RR and he has been blocked for 24 hours. —  MusicMaker5376 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the block, it was not for 3RR, but for WP:SOCK, having used his username and ip. Oh, well -- the end result is the same. Of course, now he's just going to be pissed when he returns. We can all keep our eyes on things -- just make sure that none of us do 4 reverts in 24 hrs, because you'll get blocked, too.... —  MusicMaker5376 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting copyvios doesn't fall under the three-revert rule. WP:3RR's list of exceptions covers, among other things, "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies". So if it's a clear copyvio then it should be fine. Crystallina 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just copyvio -- there's also an UNGODLY list of ELs he keeps reverting in and some other unencyclopedic material. I don't think the exemptions would qualify the entire reverted text. —  MusicMaker5376 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The block expired about 13 hours ago and he's already reverted again. He may not have even been affected by the block. —  MusicMaker5376 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Evita (musical)

The synopsis in this musical needs to be converted to narrative paragraphs. Does anyone have the time to give it a look? -- Ssilvers 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I kinda like it that way. It's a little different and unconventional, but for a show that eschews dialogue and is a true rock opera in that it's just rock song after rock song, I think it works. It sort of conveys that. It could use a little cleanup, tho. However, if there are other editors who object to its format, I'd be happy to rewrite the synopsis. —  MusicMaker5376 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, too, the addition of the word "narrative" in the article structure. It was never discussed and, IMO, you're assuming a little too much. Let's see what others think, first. —  MusicMaker5376 01:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I agree that a synopsis should, at the very least, be prose. But (if I remember rightly) Evita has no unsung dialogue - so why not use the songs to tell the story, instead of telling the story to place the songs (as we usually do). To tell the truth, I was meaning to prosify the songlist when I did the article cleanup a couple of months ago, but things got away from me and I never got round to it. Now, though, it's rather grown on me. Perhaps some of the text for each song needs a little more work, but I think it's fine to leave it structurally as is. - Dafyd 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Mary Sunshine

What happened to this article? -- Ssilvers 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? It seems fine. The diff between your last edit and the current version wasn't all that different. What's your beef with it? —  MusicMaker5376 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK now - Most of the article had been inadvertently deleted, I guess. User:SoundofMusicals fixed it. -- Ssilvers 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jule Styne

According to [2], Wonderworld was an hour-long show presented at the 1964-65 New York World's Fair. Other than that, I can't find anything about it. I'm wondering if this should be included in the template if it's not a full-fledged musical. ConoscoTutto 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that a composition by Jule Styne, choreographed by Michael Kidd, and presented at the New York World's Fair is notable. —  MusicMaker5376 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the book (ref. at end) Chita Rivera was in it, along with 250 performers. (And, I think I saw it.<---ignore that) JeanColumbia 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)("Supporting Player" (2007) By Richard Seff p. 189)

I just wrote a short article about this, it really didn't last very long, just May-June 1964. Couldn't find a song list, I'll check Thursday. JeanColumbia 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thrill Me, again

I think we need to take this to WP:RFC - this is getting out of hand. Crystallina 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, forget RFC. I've requested it to be protected. Blocking isn't working since he's on his third account (one username, two IPs). Crystallina 03:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think requesting protection is an excellent idea. Docta247 09:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Update! The page is now protected, so hopefully this is an opportunity to get in touch with Thrillmecd and see if we can get him to work with concensus now he's found he can't work against it. Docta247 12:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And protection didn't work. I suspect he'll just go to another IP address after this one gets blocked. If he keeps this up I'm going to re-request protection, but this isn't really a solution; it's just buying time. Does anyone have any other/better ideas? Crystallina 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all we can do at this point is desperately try to reason with him, which I admit sounds unlikely. He claims to have some problems with the accuracy and completeness, which I actually doubt is true. In fact, I think his main problem is that it's not enough of a promo piece for his work. Either way, we need to assume good faith, try to work with him up to the point where he breaks the rules again and then use the systems available to us to ensure that he can't just railroad the article into a state that suits him and only him. Docta247 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The image he uploaded was deleted and he's uploaded it again. If he keeps it up, they'll block him for that. —  MusicMaker5376 01:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Albums Revisited

Checked the Archieve where it said the cast recording articles would be in the style of - Musical Name (album). I changed the hairspray cast recording to fit with this awhile ago, but it has now been changed back. I know if I changed it to just Hairspray (album) people might get confused with the other two, so should i re-change it only this time to Hairspray (2002 album) ?? Mark E 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting whomever changed it back and explaining to them that it was moved after discussion with WP:ALBUMS and that it's the accepted naming convention. —  MusicMaker5376 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has made it hard for me (someone crap at using wikipedia) by redirecting the previous page it was on to a disambig page and I cant figure it out. Can someone else possibly do this since i dont want to completely screw it up.Mark E 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Post links to the pages and I'll see what I can do. —  MusicMaker5376 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hairspray (2002 soundtrack) - This is the article........

Hairspray (album) - Destination page, but this redirects to Hairspray soundtrack which is a disambiguation page.Mark E 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Hairspray soundtrack should redirect to Hairspray (album) which would be the disambig page currently at HPST. The three album titles should be titled Hairspray (YYYY album). If you want, I'll handle it when I get home from work. —  MusicMaker5376 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merrily We Roll Along

After discussion with several other editors, I had split the Merrily We Roll Along (play) and Merrily We Roll Along (musical) Into two articles. Now, User:ConoscoTutto has recombined them without any discussion and begun an AFD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrily We Roll Along (musical), without notifying me that he was doing so, or even leaving a message on the article's talk page. I believe that by combining the two articles, it discourages editors from expanding the article about the play. What is the consensus? -- Ssilvers 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If such discussions "with several other editors" really took place, why isn't there a record of them on the article's talk page? Isn't that where they belong? And I DID leave a message at Talk:Merrily We Roll Along (musical), so what are you talking about? You made the same accusation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrily We Roll Along (musical) and made it again here even AFTER I told you I posted a message on the talk page. I don't think that's fair at all. As far as notifying you about what I was doing, several people have pointed out to me that you watch what every other musical theatre project editor does like a hawk, so I assumed you'd know I put the article up for deletion before long. ConoscoTutto 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't just go destroying other editors' work without discussion. This is what you routinely used to do before you were blocked under the name User:SFTVLGUY2. I see that you are back to your bad old ways, now posting as User:ConoscoTutto. I am very sorry to see this. -- Ssilvers 22:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be sure of what you're talking about before you make rash accusations. You state "You can't just go destroying other editors' work without discussion" but before you divided the Merrily article you yourself had no discussion about doing so that's documented on the talk page. Why was I supposed to have a discussion but you weren't? Furthermore, I did not "destroy" anyone's work, everything in Merrily We Roll Along is EXACTLY the same as it was before you divided it. I just combined the two articles again, I didn't "destroy" anything. Please stop exaggerating or lying outright about circumstances to bolster your position. It's not fair and very unethical. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Just like old times, isn't it? I made a good-faith edit and transferred numerous links to the new article on the play. Then you went and undid all my work. That's why you needed to discuss it first. In the first instance, I did not undo another editor's hard work. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Musical Theatre

Please review the changes made in the last couple of days to our flagship article, musical theatre. IMO, most of the changes are OR. In addition, it was agreed, over a year ago, to limit the list of "Famous musicals" in the intro to just a few examples, and now the list is very R&H heavy. Can we get a consensus, please? -- Ssilvers 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support undoing or reverting almost every one of those edits. Perhaps the editor is Oscar Hammerstein IV? —  MusicMaker5376 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ive changed the list of musicals back to how it was before. I do however think that The producers looks out of place on that list and something else should take it's place.Mark E 11:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article, but Mark's changes were not there, so I made them,; don't know what happened to his changes. I don't have time to look at each of the recent edits, this one just caught my eye. (Since "The Producers" was in the list previously, I left it. I think it's ok to leave it, it's recent, won a lot of Tonys, what else could take its place?? I'll answer my own question by looking at the playbill article on long runs: A Chorus Line? Beauty/Beast? Lion King? Not suggesting any in particular, but at least there is some rational basis for picking any of these: a very long run on B'way; otherwise we're getting into "my favorite musical/composer/diva" stuff--and here come my personal favorites for this list: "Hello Dolly" or "Into the Woods".)JeanColumbia 13:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I personally hate The Lion King but I think that is alot more notable than The Producers (which i actually quite like). Also how about The Fantasticks. I dont know much about it apart from its the longest running musical ever.Mark E 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mark. This list was discussed at length last year, and the consensus was to keep the list short, but let me try to explain the choices that were made, and then let's see if any adjustments need to be made: Oklahoma! - innovative and begins the golden age of musicals; The Sound of Music - last R&H musical, bookends their contributions; West Side Story - innovative in music, dance and subject matter, first Sondheim show; Les Misérables - longest-running show [correction - B'way/West End show] in the world; Cats - set longest-running record, represents the Lloyd Webber legacy; The Phantom of the Opera - longest running B'way show, Rent - innovative, represents the modern rock musical, and The Producers - won the most Tonys in history. I don't think Lion King is particularly notable, unless you want to say that it is an example of the successful Disney dynasty. I would not object to adding Fantasticks. Discuss. But I do think we should keep the list as short as possible. -- Ssilvers 17:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fantasticks is the longest-running musical in the world, not Les Mis. I say we add it. Keep Les Mis, tho. Adds some international flare.... —  MusicMaker5376 01:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Sorry, I meant the longest-running B'way or West End musical in history. -- Ssilvers 03:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical on Stage!

Someone with some more intestinal fortitude than myself needs to take a look at that article. When I was infoboxing, I came across it and, in a bout of indignation, refused to put an infobox on it -- look at that damn list of "composers"! I don't even know how to handle that! It's crying out for a blue pencil, but I would end up cutting it down to nothing. —  MusicMaker5376 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month - Last 4 days!!

There are only 4 days to go in our first Collaboration of the Month, which is to improve stub-class articles to at least start-class articles, beginning with those categorized under the letter "A". We have made much progress, but please help us by choosing a stub class article beginning with the letter A and improving it by expanding its plot synopsis, background information, critical reception, etc. Also, go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/COTM page and vote on next month's Collaboration of the Month. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thrill Me, again

It looks like the vandal is back. Everyone please watch this article. -- Ssilvers 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Man of La Mancha

This article is entirely unreferenced. Can anyone add any references? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Articles

There are separate articles for:

• High School Musical on Stage!; and
• High School Musical On Stage!.

They each have rather different information. Can anyone straighten this out? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thrill Me

Someone is vandalizing the talk page. A little help, please? -- Ssilvers 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Also reported the latest sockpuppet. Crystallina 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Theatre vs. Theater

Over a year ago, we had extensive discussions about the spelling of Theatre vs. Theater in our flagship article, musical theatre. The consensus at the time was strongly in favor of using "theatre". Various proponents cited various reasons, but the ones that I felt were the most persuasive were (1) that theatre is correct in all English-speaking countries, whereas theater is only correct in the US; (2) that, even in the US, people connected with the theatre use the spelling "theatre"; and (3) that using the international spelling makes the article less US-centric. Now, someone keeps insisting that we use both spellings in the article, and I think they are using it in a way that only adds confusion to the first sentence of the article. Opinions? -- Ssilvers 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The other editor isn't making widespread changes to the article -- s/he isn't changing it through the rest of the article -- only adding "(or "theater")" to the first sentence of the article. I think you'd have to be nearly braindead for that to cause confusion. On the other hand, I think it reminds Brits that Americans spell it differently. I don't think it's necessary, but I don't think it should be reverted, either. It does, however, make the article more comprehensive in its coverage by acknowledging both spellings. Without it, it implies that there is only one correct way of spelling the word. As long as we stick to one spelling in actual usage throughout the article, I think the parenthetical aside can stay. —  MusicMaker5376 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not confusing, but I'm strongly in favour of not having both in the article. I don't see the point of reminding Brits (and many other English speaking countries for that matter) of anything; why would an article need to provide linguistic reminders to certain readers? The manual of style and (specifically WP:ENGVAR) advises to only use one convention and stick to it, so if a previous talk had a consensus pointing to "theatre" then that should be used unless someone strongly objects. I guess we could have another talk debate. To sum up my ramble, I don't feel strongly about which should be used, but I do feel strongly that we shouldn't use both simultaneously. Docta247 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MOS:

Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia. (emphasis mine)

By not recognizing the other spelling, we're implying that the one we use is more correct. The lead should probably read "Musical Theatre (or Musical Theater) is...". But, of course, the article itself should stick to one or the other. —  MusicMaker5376 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

However, there's no danger of confusion arising... Docta247 06:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not saying that there is danger of confusion. I'm not saying that both should be used throughout the article. I'm saying that, in the interest of encyclopedic coverage, the other spelling should be acknowledged. Look at theatre, artifact, color, humour, favor, etc., etc., etc.... They all mention both spellings in the lead. If theatre mentions both spellings, there's no reason why musical theatre shouldn't. —  MusicMaker5376 12:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That the variation is mentioned in Theatre ought to be sufficient; to have it mentioned in every other article that uses the word would be a little silly, particularly since it is not universal in the US even. DionysosProteus 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why have separate articles? —  MusicMaker5376 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is necessary to explain the spelling variation--which has no meaningful consequence of any kind, I might add--on every article that uses the word in its title? Suggesting that this would be unnecessary in no way implies that they ought to be merged. DionysosProteus 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's how you interpret what I'm suggesting, then, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. As my examples suggest, the articles with titles with a spelling difference note that difference. Now, no, I did not check every article. I checked the ones that came to mind, and I didn't find ONE article that didn't explain the spelling difference. This is an encyclopedia. One of our missions is to assume that the reader knows NOTHING. By having the article titled -re, by using that spelling throughout the article, by not even ACKNOWLEDGING the other spelling, we are implying that -re is the correct spelling. If that were the proper way of going about this, this conversation would never have come up. We are to state the obvious. Why are we being obtuse in our main article? Do we need to bring this to WP:RFC? —  MusicMaker5376 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed my identification of what I understand to be the flaw in your reasoning. I accept that there is a variation in the spelling and that wikipedia ought to acknowledge that. What I do not accept is that it is necessary to repeat that acknowledgment on every article page that uses the word 'theatre' in its title--including musical theatre. If, as you seem to be arguing, it is necessary to remind readers of the variation in the intro of musical theatre, why not in every other one? What's so special about muscial theatre that it requires a reiteration of the information provided in the main theatre article? You claim it would be "obtuse" not to repeat the identification, yet without saying why; if its 'insensitive' to leave it out there, why is it not insensitive to do so on all other theatre articles? Is there something particularly over-sensitive about the imagined readership of the musical theatre article? Are we to assume that the reader knows nothing and needs to be reminded of this inconsequential variation when reading theatre language, theatre for development, digital theatre and all the rest? What is the need to acknowledge the other spelling in all those other articles? It is identified in theatre--why does that need to be repeated anywhere else? Or are you suggesting there's something special about musical theatre of which I'm unaware? DionysosProteus 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say I agree wholeheartedly with DionysosProteus. Docta247 06:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, so do I. —  MusicMaker5376 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I no longer agree with myself, damn it. DionysosProteus 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've come to a new determination: Wikipedia should implode. —  MusicMaker5376 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)