Talk:The Arcadians (musical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Musical Theatre Portal The Arcadians (musical) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks: Help out with one of the WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks below. You may add your name to the Participants list to the right. edit this Open Tasks template Collaborate and work on the Collaboration of the Month Articles needing a content fork Mainly, these are articles on films and either their source or subsequent musicals. There are a couple where the musical needs to be "forked" from the source material. Feel free to add or remove as necessary. Important: If you split an article, please make sure that you move all the relevant links from the first article to the new one. To find which links to move, click on "What links here" at the old article and look through the list to see which links should be pointed to the film related link (for example, articles on actors in the film). Then, click on those links and update them to point to the film article. Thanks! Don't Play Us Cheap Roberta How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I Married an Angel Lady in the Dark The Band Wagon - musical adaptation will to be forked after it opens in April.

[edit] The dreaded OR strikes again

Would you kindly add a reference for the new information that you added to this article? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be constructive if we can. Can you suggest what would be a suitable reference? The plot summary from Ganzl? The libretto of the work itself? This is such an obvious inference from the text of the play that I really don't think it could possibly be construed as OR in the Wiki sense, or as "literary interpretation" in any sense whatever. The "Arcadian" characters visit London in order to "convert" the Londoners - that is a point they do not just mention - it is laboured over and over! To say that they don't succeed is equally self evident.

Just imagine (if you can) how much of the "Musical theatre" article would survive this kind of thing! On these grounds it is about 90% pure OR!!! I hasten to add I think it (the "Musical theatre" article) is near perfect, and that referencing every possible "OR" point would not improve it one iota.

OR is an important concept, and I do believe in referencing anything likely to be the subject of genuine controversy, but if it is not kept within reason the result will not be "improved" articles but totally emasculated ones!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that anything that is in the script itself should be summarized in the article, and I encourage you to correct or improve the synopsis if you find that it does not adequatly summarize the script in any respect. However, your assertion that "The work also satirises the assumptions of the Christian missionary movement" needs a reference. Some authority may have made a statement that lends sufficient support to your assertion, and the article would be improved by adding it. As for the rest of the sentence, if it belongs in the synopsis, please move it there. If it is "background" analysis, please add a reference.

The Musical Theatre article does not have in-line references. However, I believe that every statement in it can be referenced from one or more of the references listed at the bottom of the article, including John Kenrick's wonderful musicals.101 website. So, it is adequately referenced, just not as conveniently as in-line references. I totally agree with you that it would be a low-value exercise (and a lot of work), to go through the whole thing to find the cite for every assertion in the article and then give all the references in-line. In the case of the Arcadians article, all the information comes from the references given, but now you have added new and unreferenced information that must be referenced or deleted per WP:V. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)