Talk:Hello, Dolly! (musical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to musical theatre. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 older entries 2 film version split 3 Article work needed 4 Film adaptation

[edit] older entries

User:4.47.127.133 says the movie is "great and definitely worth watching". I have removed this comment from the article (too POV of course) and put it here. <KF> 04:53, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Too late, they have removed it themselves. Feel free to contribute any interesting material you have, 4.47.127.133, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Dolly's 10 Tony Awards was a record held 37 years until The Producers garnered 12 Tonys in 2001. Company was nominated for 11 Tony Awards, but "only" won 5.

[edit] film version split

I, for one, agree the film version is notable enough to deserve its own page separate from the musical (though I wasn't the one to put up the split tag). thoughts? Reimelt 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has split it. I've removed the split tag and added a Main article tag, and with this edit, I'm removing the FilmsWikiProject tag. TheMadBaron 12:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article work needed

Work is needed on the structure and comprehensiveness of this article; as it currently stands, the article is all lead, no body (see WP:LEAD). The body is also very listy, and short on any content typical of Wikipedia articles. For an example of a featured article on a straight play, see The Country Wife, which gives a good idea of the type of sections one expects to find in a comprehensive article. This article doesn't tell our readers much about Dolly; if this is the standard, it's not surprising that MT is not represented at all in WP:GA or WP:FA. Suggestions at WP:MUSICALS are a good starting place for completing and beefing up this article to a more comprehensive piece, conforming with [[WP:MOS] and WP:LEAD. The article history shows that there was more of an article structure at year-end 2006; merging the current content and text with the earlier and a better structure might help. Also, I'm noticing Trivia sections in many musical articles, which should be eliminated (see WP:TRIVIA). Comments ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit of this article was such a travesty it didn't include Jerry Herman's name in the opening sentence!!! Furthermore, it presented its facts out-of-order - since when is chronology of no importance in articles? I am appalled that anyone would think this revision was in any way an "improvement."

I have revised the article to restore Herman's name to the opening, give more prominence to the plot line (which was buried in the article), separate the film adaptation from the stage productions (as it should be), and remove inconsequential details about the film The Matchmaker. Who starred in that movie has no bearing on Hello, Dolly! and those facts belong in that film's article, not here. Additionally, reference to On the Razzle makes no sense, coming as it did some twenty years after Dolly and in no way linked directly to the musical.

I also removed an inaccurate comment re: he film version, which was a commercial flop at the time of its release. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 16:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would stop moving the sections around and leave them where WP:MUSICALS guidelines indicate that they should go, it will be easier for everyone to see and discuss the various textual changes that can be made. Plot synopsis sections do not belong in the introduction of WP articles -- WP:LEAD suggests that the intro should be an overview of the rest of the article, rather than a plot summary section. -- Ssilvers 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"SUGGESTS" does not mean "demands" or "forces" or "requires without question." Use some common sense here. Despite what a handful of people no longer involved with the project may have thought was a good idea, I don't think the average reader wants to wade through ¾ of an article about a musical or play before finally discovering its plot. I don't see how you can deny the way in which my articles unfold the facts is logical. Who wrote it? What is its plot? What interesting background info is there? Where was it performed? What are its musical numbers? What awards did it win?

Had you been one of those who compiled the WP:MUSICALS "guidelines," I could understand your resistance to changing them. But as often as I have asked, you never have explained to me why you insist on rigidly clinging to the past by claiming that the old formats designed by people who abandoned the project are the only ones that should be considered. Your argument is always the same - essentially, "it must be done that way because that's the way things are done." Why is it so difficult to accept that new ideas might hold some merit? SFTVLGUY2 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am simply following WP consensus on WP:LEAD and the article structure described under the WP:MUSICAL project and similar projects like WP:WPO and WP:G&S. I disagree with you about the plot section: Having a separate section gives the plot more prominence than sticking it into the introduction section. The table of contents clearly indicates where it is so that readers can find it easily. I have reorganized the article using the structure described in the Musicals project, and I have also made many of the corrections that you suggest above. I think we need more detail on the subsequent productions. Best regards. -- Ssilvers 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film adaptation

There is already a separate article about the film, so we don't need a separate section here. Maybe we should slim down the discussion of the film more, since people can read the film's article. -- Ssilvers 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As always, I agree with less-is-better and have edited the film info, but it shouldn't be included with the stage production history. And again I have removed the comment that it was one of the most popular film musicals made earlier in the article, since it was a box office dud. SFTVLGUY2 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it is played over and over on TV, so if we say it's a dud, we should just note that it continues to be popular on TV. -- Ssilvers 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You yourself said, "Maybe we should slim down the discussion of the film more, since people can read the film's article," so why should any reference to its TV popularity be mentioned here? I didn't say it was a dud within this article; if I had done so your suggestion would be valid. The film article specifies it didn't make money until it was released on video, and that's where that info belongs. SFTVLGUY2 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. But this (now) one-liner should not get its own heading. Best regards, Ssilvers 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it doesn't belong with the stage production history, I'll remove it completely. The film version is referenced at the start of the article anyway. SFTVLGUY2 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is notable that a major motion picture was made of the musical. I don't think a disambiguation notice fulfills our responsibility to mention this in the article. I'll fix it later. -- Ssilvers 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)